P. v. Mitchell
Filed 2/6/08 P. v. Mitchell CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEREMY ROBERT MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant. | A118619 (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR036789S) |
Jeremy Robert Mitchell appeals from a judgment imposed after revocation of his probation. His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
On December 23, 2003, defendant waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty to lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) and admitted a violation of probation in case No. CR021956BS, a case in which defendant had previously been placed on probation for possession of a sawed-off shotgun (Pen. Code, 12020, subd. (a)). On March 2, 2004, the court suspended execution of a six-year prison sentence and placed defendant on probation for five years. Defendants probation conditions included completion of a sex offender treatment program.
On October 30, 2006, the People filed a motion to revoke probation alleging that defendant violated the terms of probation by failing to report to his probation officer on three separate dates and by being terminated from the Narum Sex Offender Treatment Program. On November 28, 2006, defendant admitted the alleged probation violations.
On December 26, 2006, the court referred defendant for a diagnostic evaluation pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations diagnostic study recommended that defendant be sentenced to state prison because of the seriousness of his criminal behavior and his inability to comply with his probation conditions. On May 31, 2007, the court sentenced defendant to the previously suspended term of six years in state prison and imposed a two-year concurrent term in case No. CR021956BS. The court granted defendant custody credits of 678 days.
Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. There was no error in the sentencing. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
________________________
RIVERA, J.
We concur:
___________________________
RUVOLO, P.J.
___________________________
REARDON, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
