P. v. Tharpe

Filed 11/24/09 P. v. Tharpe 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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:*

Ladell Owen Tharpe, without obtaining a certificate of probable cause, appeals from the order revoking probation previously granted after his plea of no contest to one count of carjacking. (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to the midterm of five years, suspended execution of sentence and placed appellant on five years formal probation subject to conditions, including, among others, that he not own, possess, or have custody of dangerous weapons such as firearms and knives and that he not associate with members of Insane Crip gangs.

At a subsequent probation violation hearing, the following facts were adduced: On the morning of May 14, 2008, Long Beach Police Officer Michael Richens participated in a series of executions of search warrant on Insane Crip and Baby Insane Crip gang members. One of the warrants was executed at appellants residence, where he resided with his girlfriend, their children, his mother and two of his brothers. Appellant was not at home.

Upon entry into the residence, appellants mother and brother directed the officers to appellants bedroom. When Officer Richens entered appellants room, he observed a pellet gun and a notebook cover with the letters B.I.G., the Baby Insane Crips gang logo.

Thereafter, the trial court found that appellant violated the terms of his probation by associating with a criminal street gang and possessing the weapon. The trial court therefore imposed the previously suspended five-year sentence.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On July 30, 2009, 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.

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

The order under review is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

*^{BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J., CHAVEZ, J.}