IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba)
August 16, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
STEVEN WENDELL SALLAZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CRF06794)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , J.
P. v. Sallaz
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.*fn1 Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On November 24, 2006, defendant Steven Wendell Sallaz got into a dispute with a female bar patron and struck her three or four times with a beer bottle, breaking her nose and causing numerous lacerations and bruising to her head, face, and chest. Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and it was alleged the victim suffered great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a).)*fn2
Over the course of the next several years, the trial court heard numerous Marsden motions and suspended proceedings several times to ascertain defendant's competence. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118; § 1368.)
On March 13, 2009, defendant entered into a plea agreement providing he plead no contest to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) In exchange for his plea, the great bodily injury allegation was dismissed and it was agreed he would be initially granted probation.
The trial court placed defendant on probation on March 27, 2009. As terms of his probation, defendant was required to report monthly to the probation department, stating his current residence, whereabouts, and report any change to his whereabouts within five days.
A petition for revocation of probation was filed on November 30, 2009, alleging defendant had failed to report to the probation officer after September 1, 2009. A warrant issued for defendant's arrest.
Defendant appeared in court on January 7, 2010, in custody. Shortly thereafter, proceedings were again suspended pursuant to section 1368 and another evaluation was performed. The court subsequently found defendant competent and a contested probation revocation hearing was held.
A Yuba County probation officer testified that when defendant was placed on probation in April 2009, he was directed to report in person and in writing by the third business day of each month. In June 2009, defendant moved from Yuba County to Butte County and the Butte County Probation Department agreed to provide courtesy probation supervision. Defendant reported to the Butte County Probation Department from June to September 2009. After September, defendant failed to report to the Butte County Probation Department. A Butte County probation officer notified the Yuba County Probation Department that defendant was homeless and would be moving back to Yuba County. Defendant, however, did not report back to the Yuba County Probation Department or otherwise make contact with either probation department after September 2009.
Defendant claimed his lifelong uncontrolled seizure disorder and impaired cognitive functioning prevented him from reporting to probation. He also claimed he stopped reporting to the Butte County probation officer because his supervision was transferred from Chico to Oroville and he could not wake up in time or afford to take the bus to Oroville to report in person. He further stated he was told the Butte County Probation Department closed his case because he was homeless and he believed he did not need to continue reporting to probation as long as he stayed out of trouble. He did, however, admit that Butte County told him the case was being transferred back to Yuba County.
The trial court found defendant had violated his probation, finding "defendant failed to report, not because he did not have the mental capabilities needed to follow through with his reporting directives, but instead, because he willfully chose not to follow the probation officer's directives."
Prior to sentencing, proceedings were suspended to permit the director of the regional center for the developmentally disabled to evaluate defendant for placement in a state hospital or developmental center as provided in section 1370.1. After Alta California Regional Center determined defendant did not have a developmental disability and a subsequent competency hearing was held, the trial court reinstated criminal proceedings and sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years in state prison. He received 1,307 days of custody credit. (§ 4019.)
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. BUTZ , J.