P. v. Oppido
Filed 2/9/09 P. v. Oppido 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. KURT LOUIS OPPIDO, Defendant and Appellant. | D053504 (Super. Ct. No. SCE264797D) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert Exarhos and Peter Deddeh, Judges. Affirmed.
Kurt Louis Oppido entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of causing corporal injury to a co-inhabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted that he personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime (Pen. Code, 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). Under the plea bargain, the prosecution agreed to dismiss three prior prison term allegations (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The prosecution also agreed that it would not oppose Oppido serving any custody time imposed locally. The trial court placed Oppido on formal probation for three years, on the condition that, among other things, he serve 365 days in county jail.
Oppido 's probation was revoked the following year after he admitted that he had violated terms of his probation by contacting the domestic violence victim, and tested positive for methamphetamine. The trial court denied Oppido's request for reinstatement of probation and sentenced him to the middle term of three years in prison.
FACTS
On August 15, 2006, police officers responded to a possible domestic violence call at Oppido's apartment. The victim, Cheryl Orr, told officers that while she was taking a shower, Oppido had hidden her wallet. Orr could not find the wallet in the apartment, and told Oppido that she wanted to look for it in the car, which upset him. When Orr reached for the car keys, Oppido pushed her. Oppido also grabbed Orr by her hair and struck her with a small screwdriver near her eye and on one of her arms. Orr's wallet was found in the trunk of the vehicle.
On April 23, 2008, Oppido was arrested for various probation violations, including having contact with Orr. Earlier that day, Oppido provided a urine specimen for drug analysis. On April 25, the probation officer received the results of the drug test, which were positive for methamphetamine.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court 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 refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Oppido's due process rights were satisfied by the manner in which the probation revocation proceedings were conducted; and (2) whether the court abused its discretion by sentencing Oppido to three years in prison rather than reinstating him on probation.
We granted Oppido 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 referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Oppido on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
