People v. Van Reeth
People v. Van Reeth
02:10:2006
P. v. Van Reeth
Filed 2/2/06 P. v. Van Reeth CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTIAN VAN REETH,
Defendant and Appellant.
A111489
(Lake County
Super. Ct. Nos. CR901006,
CR900408 & CR5482)
Appellant's counsel has filed an opening brief in which she raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
BACKGROUND
In February of 2003 appellant entered a plea resulting in his conviction of the charge of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation with standard conditions.
Approximately one year later, a petition was filed to revoke appellant's probation on the grounds that he had picked up two new violations, including possession of dangerous weapons (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)) and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)) as well as other charges. The petition also alleged that he had failed to participate in treatment programs and had been found in possession of methamphetamine in April of 2004. While this probation violation matter was pending, appellant was also charged in a new case with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) as well as misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364) and the other charges referred to in the paragraph above.
In July of 2005, appellant entered a guilty plea to the charge of possession of methamphetamine in this new case as well as a guilty plea to the charge of possession of dangerous weapons (shurikens). Other pending charges were dismissed with waivers under People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d, 754. Appellant admitted his violation of probation in the same proceeding.
At the sentencing hearing which followed, the court denied probation and imposed the midterm of two years on the possession of methamphetamine charge in the most recent case. The court also imposed a consecutive one-third the midterm sentence of one year for the transportation of methamphetamine conviction in the original case, as well as a consecutive sentence of eight months for the conviction of possession of shurikens (throwing stars) in case No. CR900408. The total term of imprisonment imposed was three years, eight months. A restitution fine of $1,000 was imposed and the corresponding parole restitution fine was stayed. The court awarded credits for time served of 88 actual days and 44 good conduct days.
This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues. Appellant was represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings and was advised of his constitutional rights with reference to the entry of his pleas and waivers of rights. We also discern no error in appellant's sentencing. The trial court correctly found that appellant had substance abuse problems which he had failed to address and that he had violated his probation with a string of convictions which were numerous and of increasing seriousness. The court's decision to impose consecutive terms was supported by the occurrence of the offenses at different times and different places. The record also indicates that the presentence custody and conduct credits were properly calculated and awarded as were the fines imposed and stayed.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Lambden, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Busch, J.*
Courtesy of Tecate Employment Lawyers (with http://www.mcmillanlaw.us.), and Tecate Lawyer Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com)
_________________________
*Judge of the San Francisco Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
02:10:2006
Filed 2/2/06 P. v. Van Reeth CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTIAN VAN REETH,
Defendant and Appellant.
A111489
(Lake County
Super. Ct. Nos. CR901006,
CR900408 & CR5482)
Appellant's counsel has filed an opening brief in which she raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
BACKGROUND
In February of 2003 appellant entered a plea resulting in his conviction of the charge of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation with standard conditions.
Approximately one year later, a petition was filed to revoke appellant's probation on the grounds that he had picked up two new violations, including possession of dangerous weapons (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)) and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)) as well as other charges. The petition also alleged that he had failed to participate in treatment programs and had been found in possession of methamphetamine in April of 2004. While this probation violation matter was pending, appellant was also charged in a new case with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) as well as misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364) and the other charges referred to in the paragraph above.
In July of 2005, appellant entered a guilty plea to the charge of possession of methamphetamine in this new case as well as a guilty plea to the charge of possession of dangerous weapons (shurikens). Other pending charges were dismissed with waivers under People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d, 754. Appellant admitted his violation of probation in the same proceeding.
At the sentencing hearing which followed, the court denied probation and imposed the midterm of two years on the possession of methamphetamine charge in the most recent case. The court also imposed a consecutive one-third the midterm sentence of one year for the transportation of methamphetamine conviction in the original case, as well as a consecutive sentence of eight months for the conviction of possession of shurikens (throwing stars) in case No. CR900408. The total term of imprisonment imposed was three years, eight months. A restitution fine of $1,000 was imposed and the corresponding parole restitution fine was stayed. The court awarded credits for time served of 88 actual days and 44 good conduct days.
This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues. Appellant was represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings and was advised of his constitutional rights with reference to the entry of his pleas and waivers of rights. We also discern no error in appellant's sentencing. The trial court correctly found that appellant had substance abuse problems which he had failed to address and that he had violated his probation with a string of convictions which were numerous and of increasing seriousness. The court's decision to impose consecutive terms was supported by the occurrence of the offenses at different times and different places. The record also indicates that the presentence custody and conduct credits were properly calculated and awarded as were the fines imposed and stayed.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Lambden, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Busch, J.*
Courtesy of Tecate Employment Lawyers (with http://www.mcmillanlaw.us.), and Tecate Lawyer Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com)
_________________________
*Judge of the San Francisco Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
| Description | A criminal law decision on transportation of methamphetamine. |
| Rating |
