P. v. Wilson



Filed 12/9/11 P. v. Wilson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. VANCOIS WENDELL WILSON, Defendant and Appellant.

A132606 (Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. FCR220439, FCR246695)

Vancois Wendell Wilson appeals from a judgment sentencing him to prison for an aggregate term of four years following the revocation of his probation in two separate cases. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant punched his live-in girlfriend in the face during an argument and was discovered to be carrying baggies of methamphetamine and cocaine at the time of his arrest. On April 27, 2005, he entered a no contest plea to one count of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant and one count of possession for sale of cocaine base in Solano County Superior Court Case No. FCR220439. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, sub. (a); Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5.) His plea agreement called for an initial grant of probation and the opportunity to withdraw his plea to the possession for sale count after two years of successful probation, and to instead enter a plea to simple possession of a controlled substance. On July 26, 2007, the court granted appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea to the possession for sale count and to enter a no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11377.
About a month later, appellant was charged in Solano County Superior Court Case No. FCR246695 +with a single count of possession of a firearm by a felon, after police discovered a loaded gun in his car during a traffic stop and probation search. (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1).) He pled no contest to that charge on October 24, 2007, in exchange for a promise of no state prison time in that case or in FCR220439. On December 14, 2007, appellant was granted probation in Case No. FCR246695 subject to 365 days in the county jail. After he admitted a violation in Case No. FCR220439, probation was reinstated and extended for three years.
Appellant did not appear for his surrender date and on July 28, 2008, admitted a violation of probation in Case Nos. FCR220439 and FCR246695. The court modified his probation in both cases by imposing and suspending execution of a four-year prison term, consisting of the three-year upper term for the felon in possession count in Case No. FCR246695, plus a one-year consecutive term for the corporal injury of a cohabitant count in No. FCR220439. The court also extended appellant’s probation by three years, and required him to serve a year in county jail as a condition of probation.
In September 2010, the probation department alleged a new probation violation based on appellant’s arrest on weapons and drug charges in Sacramento County. The court held a contested probation revocation hearing in Case Nos. FCR220439 and FCR246694, which was continued so the district attorney could obtain certified copies of the court documents in the Sacramento case. At the continued hearing, the court stated that the district attorney had produced a certified copy of the record in Sacramento Superior Court No. 10F06105, showing an October 18, 2010 conviction of Health and Safety Code section 11378. The court further indicated that appellant had been granted five years probation in that case, subject to the condition that he serve a year in county jail. Based on this evidence, the court found that appellant had violated his probation in Case Nos. FCR220439 and FCR246695 by failing to obey all laws. It lifted the stay of the four-year prison sentence that was previously pronounced, imposed that term, and awarded appellant 194 days in presentence credits. According to appellate counsel, the court subsequently awarded an additional 50 days of credit pursuant to a request under People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954.
II. DISCUSSION
As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note that appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, and that appellant did not file such a brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find none.
Appellant entered pleas of no contest in Case Nos. FCR220439 and FCR246695 and did not appeal from the original judgments in those cases, nor did he appeal from the order imposing and suspending a four-year prison sentence following his 2008 probation violation. Those orders are now final and may not be attacked in this appeal. (People v. Ramirez (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1421.) The prison sentence imposed was authorized by law, and the court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to reinstate probation following several violations by appellant. (Pen. Code, §§ 18; 273.5, subd. (a), 1170.1, subd. (a), 12021, subd. (a)(1); People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909.)
Appellant notes in his brief that the records from the Sacramento case were not included in the record on appeal and apparently are not contained in the superior court file.[1] The trial court stated at the probation revocation hearing that it had before it certified court records from Sacramento, which showed that appellant had been convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 and had been placed on probation with a year in county jail. Absent any indication to the contrary, we presume the court accurately characterized the documents before it, and that sufficient evidence was presented to support the finding that appellant had violated the terms of his probation by failing to obey all laws.
We are satisfied that appellant’s appointed attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of appellate counsel and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 283.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.





NEEDHAM, J.


We concur.



JONES, P. J.



BRUINIERS, J.

---