P. v. Jefferson
Filed 12/17/09 P. v. Jefferson CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND CHARLES JEFFERSON, Defendant and Appellant. | D054741 (Super. Ct. No. SCD212384) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francisco Preciado Marty, Jr., Commissioner. Affirmed.
In March 2008 Raymond Charles Jefferson entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court placed him on three years' Proposition 36 drug treatment probation (Pen. Code, 1210.1). During 2008 Jefferson admitted two separate drug-related probation violations. Each time the court revoked and reinstated probation. In 2009 Jefferson admitted a third drug-related violation and waived his right to an evidentiary hearing. The court denied his motion to dismiss the strike and sentenced him to prison for two years eight months (twice the lower term). Jefferson appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Jefferson "knowingly and unlawfully possessed .24 grams of cocaine base, after having suffered a strike prior."
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, whether Jefferson properly waived his right to an evidentiary hearing held to establish the facts for a probation violation; whether the court abused its discretion by denying Jefferson's motion to dismiss the strike; and whether the court abused its discretion by revoking Jefferson's probation after he had three drug-related violations.
We granted Jefferson permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Jefferson has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
Judgment affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
IRION, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
