P. v. Lancaster
Filed 2/26/08 P. v. Lancaster CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSIE RANDLE LANCASTER, Defendant and Appellant. | F052961 (Super. Ct. No. VCF099346-02) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary L. Paden, Judge.
Kenneth Joseph Hutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On October 29, 2002, appellant, Jessie Randle Lancaster, pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, 11364).
On March 21, 2003, the court placed Lancaster on Proposition 36 probation for three years and ordered him to enroll in the recovery court program.
On April 28, 2004, Lancasters probation officer filed an affidavit alleging Lancaster violated his probation by failing to test, failing to enroll in, participate, or complete his treatment plan, and by failing to abstain from the use of drugs.
On April 30, 2004, Lancaster admitted violating his probation by failing to test on two dates and the court reinstated probation under the original terms and conditions.
Around June 29, 2004, Lancasters probation officer filed an affidavit alleging Lancaster violated his probation by failing to attend placement orientation with the Health and Human Services Agency and failing to test on various occasions.
On July 2, 2004, Lancaster admitted violating his probation and the court reinstated it on the same terms and conditions.
Around August 30, 2004, Lancasters probation officer filed an affidavit alleging Lancaster failed to participate in and complete his drug treatment program.
On December 17, 2004, Lancaster again admitted violating his probation.
On January 6, 2005, the court took Lancaster out of the recovery court program and placed him in the drug court program.
Around October 13, 2005, Lancasters probation officer filed an affidavit alleging Lancaster violated his probation by failing to appear for drug court review, failing to test on various occasions, and failing to abstain from the use of drugs.
On October 14, 2005, Lancaster again admitted violating his probation.
On October 20, 2005, the court reinstated Lancasters probation and returned him to drug court.
On December 19, 2005, the court found that Lancaster was not in compliance with his drug court contract and excluded him from drug court.
On February 10, 2006, Lancasters probation officer filed an affidavit alleging Lancaster violated his probation by failing to contact Alternative Services Supervisor, Bobby Whitebird, as ordered by the court.
On March 8, 2006, after a contested hearing, the court found Lancaster violated his probation as alleged.
On May 9, 2007, the court sentenced Lancaster to the middle term of two years on his possession of a controlled substance conviction.
Lancasters appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Lancaster has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
*Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.
