P. v. Williams
Filed 7/28/08 P. v. Williams CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD C. WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | A120296 (AlamedaCounty Super. Ct. No. C142102) |
Defendant Edward C. Williams appeals an order revoking his probation. He was sentenced to three years in state prison less credit for time served. Defendants counsel advises this court that her examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has advised her client in writing that a Wende brief was filed and that defendant had the right to file a supplemental brief in this case within 30 days. No such brief was filed.
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2001, defendant pled no contest to possession of cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.)[1] On January 10, 2002, imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on five years probation under standard probation conditions. In addition, he was ordered to serve 62 days in the county jail and stay at least 100 yards away from the 2900 block of Martin Luther King Way in Oakland.
On February 26, 2002, the People filed a petition to revoke probation based on defendants alleged violation of Penal Code sections 273.6 and 148. Defendants probation was revoked on February 28. On April 9, probation was restored with the modification that defendant serve an additional 90 days in jail. Defendant also entered a Burks waiver of custody credits. (People v. Burks (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 232, 233-234.)
Defendant violated his probation again in May 2002 based on a Penal Code section 273.6 violation, after which probation was restored with 90 days jail time and a Burks waiver. Following his February 2003 probation violation, again for violating Penal Code section 273.6, probation was restored. Following his April 2004 probation violation for violating sections 11352 and 11351.5, probation was restored with a year of additional jail time and a Burks waiver. Following his May 2006 probation violation for violating section 11359, defendants probation was again restored with a year of additional jail time and a Burks waiver.
On April 18, 2007, the People again petitioned to revoke defendants probation based on his violation of sections 11351, 11351.5 and 11359. The petition noted that defendants probation was to terminate on October 8, 2007. At a July 13, hearing, defendant admitted his probation violation, agreed to a one-year jail term and waiver of credits prior to the July 13 hearing. Defendant understood that at the conclusion of the one-year jail term, his probation would be terminated. Also, at the July 13 hearing, defendant pled no contest in a new case (No. 155722) to violating section 11351 for which he was placed on five years probation.
On November 7, 2007, the court apparently permitted defendant to withdraw his admission of the probation violation and proceeded to the probation violation hearing. Defendant made a Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) seeking to replace his counsel, Greg Syren, on the grounds that Syren did not explain to him why his probation kept getting extended, and did not investigate this case. Syren explained he was assigned to the case in August. He understood that defendant wanted to withdraw his plea in the charged case, not the probation case. Syren said he had advised defendant to seek to have the original plea bargain reinstated and enforced. Syren also explained that based on his calculation, defendants probation was not to terminate until approximately October 2007 and that he was on probation in April, when the new charges were filed. The court properly denied the Marsden motion after determining that Syren had competently represented defendant. The court also properly denied as untimely defendants request for private counsel.
The contested probation violation hearing then ensued. Testimony was presented that on April 15, 2007, defendant was found at an Oakland motel room where heroin and cocaine base were found. In addition $402 in currency and two cell phones were found on defendants person. Based on the evidence presented, the court properly found defendant in violation of his probation. The court sentenced defendant to the three-year midterm on the original section 11351 charge. He was properly awarded 513 actual days and 256 days of local conduct credit (Pen. Code, 4019). On the prosecutors motion, the court dismissed the charges in case No. 155722.
Defendant was fully and fairly represented throughout the proceedings. There are no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
SIMONS, J.
We concur.
JONES, P.J.
NEEDHAM, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All undesignated section references are to the Health and Safety Code.
