P. v. Cullen

Filed 9/18/07 P. v. Cullen CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

Jesse Allen Cullen appeals the revocation of probation and imposition of sentence, upon his admission of the charged probation violation. Counsel has briefed no issues and asks for record review of the proceedings. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record and affirm.

In January 2006, defendant pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance (psilocybin mushrooms). Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on three years probation pursuant to Proposition 36. (Pen. Code,  1210 et seq.) Among defendants conditions of probation, he was ordered to abstain from possession or use of alcohol and controlled substances, to submit to chemical testing and search, to attend a drug assessment as directed by his probation officer, and to contact the Proposition 36 unit of the probation department within two business days of sentencing.

In February 2006, a notice of probation violation alleged defendant failed to contact probation and failed to appear for Proposition 36 court review. Defendant admitted the violation, and probation was reinstated. In June 2006, a second notice of probation violation alleged defendant failed to keep appointments with his probation officer and for a drug assessment. Defendant again admitted the violation, and probation was again reinstated. The court advised defendant: Proposition 36 is a great program in many respects if you uphold your end of the bargain. . . . But if you blow it again, youre out of chances and likely you will then go to state prison. So its time to get real serious about it and do it.

In August 2006, a third probation violation notice alleged defendant failed to keep appointments with his probation officer and with the Proposition 36 unit. Defendant admitted the violation. At the ensuing sentencing hearing, the prosecutor asked the court to impose a two-year term, although the probation report recommended a three-year sentence. Defense counsel requested some other alcohol treatment or probation, with suspension of a state prison sentence and additional jail time. Defendant did not request placement at the California Rehabilitation Center. Defendant was sentenced to two years in prison, with 80 days of custody credits, and timely appealed.

Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. He was fully advised of his rights, and of the consequences of his admissions. There was no error in the sentence imposed. Appellate counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of counsels opening brief, but no supplemental brief has been filed. Full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Siggins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

_________________________

Pollak, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.