P. v. Thomas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 10/1/13  P. v. Thomas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   DEVIN L. THOMAS,               Defendant and Appellant.

B243153         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. BA255650)

 

THE COURT:href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

 

Devin L. Thomas (Thomas) appeals
from a 2012 order finding him in violation of his probation and lifting the
stay on a state prison sentence which
was imposed but suspended in 2004 after he entered a plea of no contest to
three counts of assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220).  His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant
to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, 441 (Wende), raising no
issues.  On April 30, 2013, we notified Thomas of his counsel’s brief
and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any
grounds or argument he wants us to consider. 
The deadline was extended to July
31, 2013.  Thomas filed a
timely letter in which he raised issues related to the 2004 case rather than
the 2012 order which he challenges in his appeal.  We have reviewed the entire record.  Having found no arguable issues, we affirm
the judgment.

After Thomas pled no contest on March 1, 2004, he was sentenced to
eight years eight months in state prison. 
He was then placed on formal probation for eight years and his sentence
was suspended on the condition that, inter alia, he serve one year in county
jail, register as a sex offender and not use or possess narcotics.

Thomas appealed the judgment.

On January 6, 2005, the trial court revoked Thomas’s
probation when he failed to appear for a hearing.  A bench warrant was issued.

In People v. Thomas (Sept. 8,
2005, B175366) [nonpub. opn.], the judgment against Thomas was
affirmed.

Thomas was arrested in early 2012
based on two outstanding warrants.  After he was driven to the police station and
removed from the police car, the police officers found two baggies of cocaine
in the backseat.  On August 7, 2012, the trial court held a probation
violation hearing.  The trial court found
that Thomas did not comply with a substantial number of his probation
conditions, such as registering as a sex offender.  The stay on the state prison sentence was
lifted, and Thomas received credit for 562 days.

In his letter, Thomas
contends:  (1) His arrest for the charged
crimes in the underlying case was made without probable cause and based on
false evidence; (2) the arresting officers engaged in various types of
misconduct; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney
failed to file a motion to dismiss and otherwise made tactical errors; (4) his
attorney should have been removed from the case; (5) he was mistreated pending
trial; (6) his no contest plea should not have been accepted because he told
the trial court he was innocent; (7) he was coerced and threatened into
accepting a plea bargain; (8) he should be permitted to rescind his plea so
that he can go to trial and prove his innocence; and (9) there is evidence
outside the record that needs to be subpoenaed to support his claims.

The problem with Thomas’s arguments is that they
pertain to the underlying judgment, which was affirmed on appeal in 2005.  The current appeal pertains to the order
revoking his probation and lifting the stay on his sentence.  Because Thomas does not contend that there
was insufficient evidence that he violated the terms of his probation, we
perceive no grounds for reversal.

We have examined the entire record
and are satisfied that Thomas’s appellate counsel fully complied with her
responsibilities and that no arguable
issue exists.  We conclude that
Thomas has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and
effective appellate review of the order entered against him.  (Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.
259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)

The order is affirmed.

            NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.