P. v. Williams
Filed 12/17/09 P. v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD EUGENE WILLIAMS, SR., Defendant and Appellant. | C060750 (Super.Ct.No. 03F00411) |
On July 14, 2003, defendant Ronald Williams, Sr., was convicted in the Sacramento County Superior Court of possessing a controlled substance (case No. 03F00411). He was granted probation on terms that included a two-year suspended prison sentence, participation in drug treatment, and abstention from using or possessing illegal narcotics. The trial court also imposed fees and fines, including a $200 restitution fine, a $35 administrative fee, $4,970 in other fees and fines, and a $100 Proposition 36 fee.
On August 27, 2004, he was deleted from the Proposition 36 program after his third violation of probation.
Although the record is unclear, it appears that in December 2004, the trial court again suspended the imposition of defendants prison sentence and reinstated him on probation, including the conditions that defendant participate in a drug treatment program through adult probation and refrain from the use of marijuana. However, later in December 2004, the trial court lifted the suspension of defendants prison term and committed him to prison for two years based on the allegation that defendant had violated probation again by failing to undergo drug testing and by continuing to use marijuana.
Defendant thereafter filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the imposition of the prison sentence. On April 8, 2005, after a contested hearing, the court granted the petition, dismissed the probation violation, vacated the prison sentence, and reinstated defendant on probation with the original conditions. (The appellate record contains only a minute order of this hearing and the courts order granting the petition, which does not state reasons for that order.)
On December 29, 2005, defendant failed to appear for arraignment on a violation of probation, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.
On June 29, 2006, defendant was convicted in Placer County Superior Court of domestic violence and was sentenced to two years in prison. Defendant then requested sentencing in absentia in the Sacramento County probation violation action (case No. 03F00411).
On October 10, 2006, the Sacramento County District Attorney filed a motion to recall warrant; dismiss petition to violate probation; [and] terminate probation in the interests of justice. The motion stated: After reviewing the facts and circumstances in case number 03F00411 . . . , and considering the fact the defendant is presently incarcerated and serving a sentence at C.D.C., the People believe the need to go forward with the prosecution of the pending matter[] in Sacramento County (and the likely sanction to be obtained), is outweighed by the expenditure of time and public resources that would be required to do so.
On October 17, 2006, the trial court (Judge Gary Ransom) granted the Peoples petition, dismissed the violation of probation, and terminated defendants probation in case No. 03F00411.
In a letter filed on October 17, 2006, defendant applied to Judge Ransom for a declaration of factual innocence, apparently with respect to the probation violation. Defendant explained he sought the declaration of factual innocence to assist him in a pending civil suit against Sacramento County.
On November 6, 2006, Judge Ransom denied defendants request for a finding of factual innocence. The court order states in part: A dismissal in the interests of justice under Penal Code 1385 does not necessarily imply factual innocence, but rather may reflect the result of a negotiated or pragmatic disposition of the case. [Citation.] [] Defendants case was not dismissed. Instead, he was convicted by plea and placed on probation. The court dismissed a pending violation of probation after the prosecutor advised that defendant was in prison and that the prosecutor thought that the time and expense of pursuing the case were not a worthwhile expenditure. This does not indicate that defendant was factually innocent of the crime.
On August 7, 2008, defendant filed a formal petition seeking a finding of factual innocence. Attached to the petition is the trial courts order of April 8, 2005, granting defendants habeas petition.
On August 18, 2008, defendant filed a petition and order for expungement, seeking to reduce his felony conviction in case No. 03F00411 to a misdemeanor or to permit him to withdraw his plea and for the action to be dismissed.
A probation report recommended that the petition and order for expungement be denied, noting: (1) defendant had not paid the fees and fines ordered at the time of his original sentencing in case No. 03F00411; (2) he had violated his probation conditions by committing a domestic violence offense in 2006 for which he was presently incarcerated in state prison; and (3) the drug possession offense of which he was convicted in case No. 03F00411 was not a wobbler.
On October 2, 2008, the trial court denied the petition and order for expungement on the ground that defendant had not paid his fees and fines. The court also denied defendants petition for a finding of factual innocence.
On October 15, 2008, after reconsidering and recalendaring the matter sua sponte, the court again denied defendants petitions and continued its previous orders in full effect.
On November 24, 2009, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the October 15 order. On defendants motion, we construed the notice of appeal to be from the orders of October 2 and October 15, 2008.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are 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 record, we found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTLAND , P. J.
We concur:
HULL, J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
