IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
October 15, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JAMES DANIEL BAKER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 11F04230)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , J.
P. v. Baker
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant James Daniel Baker asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
On June 15, 2011, law enforcement stopped defendant while he was driving and searched his vehicle. Inside the vehicle, law enforcement found two "baggies" containing a usable amount of cocaine, another "baggie" of marijuana, and three additional "baggies".
Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). Defendant pleaded no contest, was granted five years of probation, and was referred to the Proposition 36 program.
On November 4, 2011, defendant failed to appear for a Proposition 36 progress report hearing. Defendant's probation was revoked and a warrant for his arrest issued. Defendant's probation was later reinstated.
On December 30, 2011, defendant admitted a "drug" violation of probation. Defendant was referred to drug court and the matter was continued to January 30, 2012. Defendant, however, failed to appear for the hearing in January. Accordingly, defendant's probation was revoked and he was "deleted" from the Proposition 36 program.
Defendant was subsequently arrested and returned to court on February 27, 2012. Defendant was denied further probation and the court imposed a 16-month term in county jail. Defendant was ordered to pay various fines and fees, and was awarded 38 days of custody credit. That same day, defendant was convicted and sentenced on an unrelated misdemeanor. Defendant appeals; his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 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 the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
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: RAYE , P. J. ROBIE , J.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.