P. v. Littlejohn

Filed 12/17/08 P. v. Littlejohn CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE COURT:^*

Raymond Littlejohn appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest on April 25, 2007, to inflicting corporal injury on Teresa Mead (Mead) in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a). On November 8, 2007, imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on three years probation, with a condition that he serve 357 days in county jail, among other things. The trial court imposed a protective order requiring appellant to stay away from Mead, and to avoid all contact, with the exception of exchanges for court ordered family visitation. The trial court ordered appellant to complete a 52-week program of domestic violence counseling. Appellant was also ordered to enroll and participate in a program for mentally ill offenders.

On March 19, 2008, a probation report alleged that appellant had violated his probation by contacting Mead. At the probation revocation hearing held on May 9, 2008, appellants probation officer testified that appellant had not enrolled in a domestic violence class or in the mental health program. He also had tested positive for drugs. Appellant was uncooperative, screamed, and used profanity when the probation officer attempted to discuss his probation. Mead testified that appellant had threatened her over the phone, waited for her in front of the childrens daycare center, grabbed her, tore her shirt, and scratched her chin.

The trial court found appellant in violation of his probation and revoked his probation. The trial court sentenced appellant to four years in state prison for his conviction on the original complaint. In selecting the upper term, the trial court cited appellants criminal history as one of the factors considered. Appellant was awarded 432 days of presentence custody credit. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.

After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised.

On October 21, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^* BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J. ASHMANN-GERST, J.