IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
January 19, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
WILLIAM DONALD BLANTON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 08F3401)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.
P. v. Blanton
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On April 16, 2008, defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); transportation of methamphetamine (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)); and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license (count 3; Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)). It was alleged that defendant had served five prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and that he had suffered three drug-related prior convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)).
On June 16, 2008, after waiving his right to a preliminary hearing, defendant agreed to plead guilty to the transportation count and to admit the prior prison term and drug conviction enhancements, in return for receiving probation under Proposition 36. ("Prop. 36"; Pen. Code, § 1202.1.) After entering his plea, defendant was placed on probation.
On September 12, 2008, defendant was accused of using marijuana, a probation violation; however, the charge was dismissed.
Defendant admitted to violating probation on March 20, 2009, and on April 17, 2009. Each time, the trial court reinstated probation.
On June 5, 2009, a petition to revoke defendant's probation was filed, alleging that defendant failed to report as directed by the court on May 1, 2009, and failed to submit a written monthly report. On July 17, 2009, defendant admitted failure to report; the trial court revoked his probation and terminated his participation in the Proposition 36 program.
On October 23, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant to 18 years in prison, consisting of four years (the upper term) for the transportation conviction, three years for each of the three prior drug convictions, and one year for each of the five prior prison terms. The court imposed a $3,600 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); a $3,600 restitution fine (suspended) (Pen. Code, § 1202.45); a $200 revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44); a $30 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); and a $50 laboratory fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)). The court awarded defendant 96 days of presentence custody credits (64 days of actual credits and 32 days of conduct credits).
Pursuant to requests from appellate counsel, on July 8, 2010, the trial court issued an amended abstract of judgment increasing defendant's presentence custody credits to 128 days (64 days of actual credits and 64 days of conduct credits), reducing the restitution fine to $200, and reducing the court security fee to $20.
According to the probation report, defendant's original conviction resulted from a traffic stop on April 14, 2008, for driving without a license plate. When the police discovered defendant's license was suspended, they arrested him. A vehicle search incident to arrest found a plastic baggie containing 1.9 grams of methamphetamine and a plastic pill bottle containing 16.9 grams of marijuana.
The probation violation leading to defendant's current sentence, which he admitted in open court, occurred because defendant "knew he would test dirty for methamphetamine and was scared[,] so he did not report to probation to test as directed by the Court."
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
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. 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.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief requesting a modification of his sentence to nine years. However, he has shown no ground for any such modification.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, Acting P. J. ROBIE, J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.