IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
December 21, 2010
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
BRYAN JAMES HOLT DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR090864AS)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ruvolo, P. J.
P. v. Holt
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Bryan James Holt (appellant) appeals from a finding that he violated the terms of his probation, and from the order reinstating that probation. Appellant's counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared he has notified appellant that no issues are being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende instead is being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court's attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant, personally.
A criminal complaint was filed on February 17, 2009, by the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office charging appellant with four counts, including: cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code,*fn1 § 11358), possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359), possession of more than one ounce of marijuana (§ 11357, subd. (c)), and possession of a firearm by one previously convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (c)(1)). Initially, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges.
On February 27, 2009, appellant entered a plea of guilty to a newly added allegation of managing a room used for the storage of marijuana (§ 11366.5), in return for which all other counts were dismissed, and it was agreed that appellant would be placed on felony probation. Appellant was advised that if he failed on probation, he would be sentenced to three years in state prison. In exchange for the negotiated plea appellant voluntarily waived his rights including the right to a jury trial, to call witnesses, and to testify. The trial court accepted the plea. Sentencing was continued to March 25, 2009.
The case was continued until May 6, 2009, at which time appellant was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea. One of the conditions of probation was that appellant not possess or use any controlled substances.
A "Notice of Probation Violation and Court Action" was filed by the probation department on October 19, 2009, claiming appellant had violated the terms of his probation by having in his possession a controlled substance. This probation violation was admitted by appellant on October 28, 2009, and, after appellant waived his rights, the court accepted the admission and set the matter for sentencing on December 9, 2009.
After several continuances, a hearing was held on January 12, 2010,*fn2 at which time the court ordered appellant's probation revoked, and the matter referred to the probation department.
In the meantime, a second "Notice of Probation Violation and Court Action" was filed on January 12, alleging appellant violated the terms of his probation by being in possession of a firearm, in violation of Penal Code section 12316, subdivision (b)(1). At a subsequent probation revocation hearing on February 10, after hearing evidence, the court concluded that appellant had violated his probation. At sentencing on March 15, the court ordered appellant's probation reinstated with modifications, including that he serve an additional 63 days in county jail, and that he perform 80 hours of community service.
Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. We discern no error in the plea or in sentencing. The restitution fines and penalties imposed were supported by the law and facts. At all times, appellant was represented by counsel.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: REARDON, J. RIVERA, J.