P. v. Solis











Filed 3/23/17 P. v. Solis CA3





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED



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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sutter)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMES BARBOZA SOLIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C082922

(Super. Ct. No. CRF15-1085)







Appointed counsel for defendant James Barboza Solis has filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
In September 2015, defendant pleaded no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)[1] and admitted four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). As the parties agreed, the trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in state prison, as follows: six years for the burglary conviction, plus four years for the prior prison terms (one year for each). As the parties also agreed, the trial court suspended execution of the sentence and placed defendant on five years’ probation; one of the conditions thereof required him to complete a residential drug treatment program. In addition, defendant was required to comply with all federal, state, county, and municipal laws. The trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a corresponding $300 probation revocation fine suspended unless probation is revoked (§ 1202.44). In addition, the trial court imposed a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373) and a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)).
In May 2016, it was alleged defendant had violated his probation in April 2016 by committing an assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and being terminated from his drug treatment program. During the June 2016 hearing on that allegation, a police officer testified the victim said defendant confronted him in a parking lot and hit him with a speedometer cable multiple times. The victim fought back and the fight ended when defendant fled in his vehicle. In addition, a counselor from defendant’s drug treatment program testified defendant was discharged from the program due to missing multiple group meetings. The counselor testified defendant also failed to participate in drug testing, which is required by the program. The trial court found defendant in violation of probation by failing to obey all laws and failing to complete his drug treatment program.
In July 2016, the trial court declined to reinstate probation and ordered defendant to serve the previously imposed 10-year sentence in state prison.The trial court lifted the stay on the $300 probation revocation fine and imposed a $300 parolerevocation fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45).Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.


We concur:



BUTZ , J.




HOCH , J.




Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com



[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.