P. v. Campbell
Filed 11/17/08 P. v. Campbell CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS DANE CAMPBELL, Defendant and Appellant. | F054872 (Super. Ct. Nos. MCR022274 & MCR025737) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Edward P. Moffat II, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Nicholas Dane Campbell stands convicted, in Madera County case No. MCR022274 (case 2274), of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a))[1], a felony, and trespass ( 602), a misdemeanor, and, in Madera County case No. MCR025737 (case 5737), of fraudulent use of an access card ( 484g), a felony. Initially, the court imposed a three-year term in each case and suspended execution of sentence. In January 2008, the court ordered execution of the previously suspended prison terms. The instant appeal followed.
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Underlying Offenses
Case 2274[2]
On July 11, 2005, a law enforcement officer observed a suspected stolen vehicle parked by the side of the road. Appellant and two juveniles were in the vehicle. Officers removed the occupants of the vehicle, conducted a search and found a computer, a DVD player, a laser level and a portable stereo. An officer later made contact with the owner of the vehicle, and she identified the items found inside the vehicle as belonging to her. She also stated no one had permission to take her vehicle or the items found inside it.
Case 5737[3]
Michelle Campbell, appellants mother, told a Madera County deputy sheriff the following. On June 24, 2006, she discovered her ATM card was missing and $1,000 had been withdrawn from her checking account from various locations in Fresno. Appellant admitted to his mother that he took the card and made the withdrawals, and that he had only $400 of the money left.
Procedural Background
In case 2274, on September 6, 2005, appellant pled no contest to receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)) and trespass ( 602). On October 4, 2005, the court placed appellant on three years probation.
On August 11, 2006, appellant pled no contest to fraudulent use of an access card ( 484g), as charged in case 5737, and admitted allegations that he violated probation in case 2274 by failing to obey all laws and by testing positive for methamphetamine. On September 11, 2006, the court placed appellant on five years probation and, in case 2274, first revoked and then reinstated probation for a period of three years from the date of the original grant of probation.
On May 9, 2007, petitions were filed in both case 2274 and 5737 alleging that appellant violated probation in each case by using marijuana and by failing to complete a drug treatment program. On May 14, 2007, appellant admitted the allegations, and the court thereafter imposed the three-year upper term on each of appellants felony convictions; suspended execution of sentence; and reinstated appellant on probation with the additional conditions that he serve 90 days in county jail, with credit for eight days served, and complete a one-year in-patient drug abuse program.
On July 18, 2007, petitions were filed in both case 2274 and case 5737 alleging that appellant violated his probation by committing violations of section 466 (possession of burglary tools) and Vehicle Code section 1085, subdivision (a) (unlawful taking or driving of a motor vehicle); moving from his residence without notifying his probation officer in advance; and testing positive for methamphetamine.
On December 18, 2007, appellant admitted the probation violation allegations. On January 17, 2008, the court revoked appellants probation and ordered that the three-year terms previously imposed and stayed be executed.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Hill, J.
[1] Except as otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Our summary of the facts of case 2274 is taken from the report of the probation office filed September 27, 2005, in that case.
[3]Our summary of the facts of case 5737 is taken from the report of the probation office filed September 5, 2006, in that case.
