P. v. Sparks
Filed 10/16/09 P. v. Sparks 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yuba)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSHUA DUSTIN SPARKS, Defendant and Appellant. | C061593 (Super. Ct. No. CRF05844) |
On December 25, 2005, defendant Joshua Dustin Sparks arrived home and argued with his spouse. Defendant was extremely intoxicated. The verbal argument escalated and defendant hit and pushed the victim. The victims 13-year-old son tried to intervene but defendant pushed him away. Defendant continued to hit the victim but stopped when the police arrived. The victim suffered a bump and redness on her forehead.
Defendant entered a no contest plea to spousal abuse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) in exchange for no state prison at the outset and the dismissal of the remaining counts. On June 12, 2006, the court granted probation subject to certain terms and conditions including that he report to his probation officer, enroll in and complete an alcohol program, obey all laws, not annoy or harass the victim, seek and maintain employment, and complete 80 hours in an adult offender work program.
An amended petition for violation of probation alleged that defendant failed to report to his probation officer after January 18, 2007, failed to submit written proof of his attendance at AA meetings, failed to attend an alcohol treatment program, violated the law in that he possessed methamphetamine and hypodermic syringes, annoyed and harassed the victim, failed to provide proof of job searches after being terminated from his employment, and was terminated from the adult offender program for unexcused absences. Defendant admitted the allegations and the court reinstated defendant on probation. Conditions were subsequently modified to allow defendant to complete a residential drug treatment program.
An amended petition for violation of probation filed January 30, 2009, alleged that defendant failed to report to an intensive outpatient alcohol treatment program as directed, tested positive for cocaine, and failed to report to the probation officer as required. Defendant admitted the allegations.
The court denied continued probation and imposed the upper term of four years for spousal abuse. Defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL, J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
