P. v. Richards
Filed 12/30/08 P. v. Richards CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN HENRY RICHARDS, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | A122313 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-514972) |
John Henry Richards, Jr., appeals from the revocation of his probation and subsequent commitment to state prison. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel has notified defendant that he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
An information was filed on August 13, 2007 in Sonoma County Superior Court charging defendant with attempting by threat to deter an executive officer from his duties. (Penal Code,[1] 69.) The information further alleged that defendant suffered a prior prison conviction within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). According to the probation report, after defendant was arrested for public intoxication, he threatened to kill the arresting officer and his family, and further threatened to use a rifle to shoot his former probation officer in San Mateo County. Defendant also stated it would be easy to use sarin gas to kill police officers.
In January 2008, defendant pleaded no contest to a violation of section 69 and admitted the prior prison conviction. Thereafter, imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on three years probation with various conditions, including a requirement that he not possess or use any . . . alcohol.
On May 22, 2008, the probation department filed a request to summarily revoke defendants probation, alleging that, during a probation search of his residence, defendant attempted to flee, an open bottle of wine was found next to a full glass on the kitchen counter, various other alcohol containers were located in the recycling bin, and a prescription medication bottle in someone elses name was found on the top of the dresser in his bedroom.
Several days later, on May 28, 2008, defendant admitted the probation violation. Defendant was sentenced in July 2008, to the low term of 16 months for the original conviction ( 69) and to an additional 12 months for the prior prison term enhancement. The court awarded 147 days of credit for time served. The court imposed a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (a)(3)(B)), a corresponding suspended parole revocation restitution fine ( 1202.45), and a $20 security fee ( 1465.8).
Defendant filed a timely appeal challenging the sentence and other matters occurring after the plea.
DISCUSSION
Nothing in the record suggests defendants admission of the probation violation was anything other than voluntary. He was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and there is no suggestion in the record that counsel was ineffective or incompetent. The sentence imposed was authorized by section 69. The trial courts decision to impose the low term and an additional 12 months for the prior prison term enhancement is neither irrational [n]or arbitrary (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977), and therefore must be affirmed on appeal. (Id.at pp. 977978) [absent showing that a trial courts sentencing decision is irrational or arbitrary, the court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review ].)
We find no arguable issues that require further briefing and accordingly, affirm the judgment.
_________________________
Margulies, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Marchiano, P.J.
_________________________
Flinn, J.*
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
* Judge of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
