P. v. Cooley
Filed 4/28/08 P. v. Cooley CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THORNTON LESTER COOLEY, Defendant and Appellant. | C056864 (Super. Ct. No. TF034147A) |
On March 5, 2007, defendant Thornton Lester Cooley pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine. Imposition of sentence was suspended, defendant was placed on probation for three years, and ordered to enroll in drug treatment pursuant to Proposition 36.
On March 20 and May 9, 2007, defendant admitted violating terms of his probation by failing to report for the drug treatment program. He was reinstated to Proposition 36 treatment both times.
On May 18, 2007, the probation officer again filed a petition alleging that defendant had failed to report for Proposition 36 treatment as ordered. Following a contested hearing conducted July 16, the court sustained the petition and imposed a two-year state prison term. The court also imposed restitution fines of $200 in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, as well as $135 for laboratory fee analysis.
Facts From Hearing of July 16, 2007
Probation Officer Meridith Hammond testified that defendant had been ordered to report for Proposition 36 drug treatment within two days of his being released from custody, that he was released on May 9, 2007, and that, as of the date of the hearing, he had never reported to her.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL, J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
