People v. Porter CA2/8 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/24/13 P. v. Porter CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
    certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION EIGHT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                         B249110
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  (Los Angeles County Super.
    Ct. Nos. BA400655 & BA400392)
    v.
    DORIAN PORTER,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
    David M. Horwitz, Judge. Affirmed.
    Ari Dybnis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    ___________________________
    On March 7, 2012, Dorian Porter was placed on three years formal
    probation after pleading no contest to one count of selling or offering to sell
    methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). (LASC case
    No. BA391031 On May 31, 2012, his probation was revoked because he failed to
    report to his probation officer. A bench warrant was also issued for his failure to
    appear in court and the matter was continued to July 19, 2012.
    In the interim, Porter had been arrested again and charged with drug
    possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), as well as misrepresenting
    his identity to a peace officer. (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a).) (LASC case
    No. BA400392.) However, on July 2, 2012, his probation in the first case
    (BA391031) had been reinstated. At the July 19, 2012 hearing, his probation was
    revoked pending the preliminary hearing in the new case.
    On July 26, 2012, the prosecutor filed a request to revoke Porter’s
    probation in the first case because he had picked up yet another drug possession
    charge. (LASC case No. BA400655.) On August 2, 2012, Porter pled guilty to
    the two new drug possession charges and the identity misrepresentation charge.
    Due to his open plea, the court continued sentencing on the new convictions for
    one year, pending Porter’s participation in a drug treatment program. Two bench
    warrants were issued for Porter twice over the next several weeks, apparently
    because he was not participating in the drug treatment program. The first was
    quashed and the probation violation was waived. The trial court declined to quash
    the second one, however.
    On October 1, 2012, Porter, who was represented by appointed counsel,
    admitted the probation violation. His lawyer asked the trial court to reinstate
    probation because Porter had left the drug treatment program to attend his
    mother’s funeral. The trial court terminated his probation and imposed concurrent
    three-year terms for the two most recent convictions.
    Porter appealed from the October 1, 2012, order but the trial court denied
    his request for a certificate of probable cause and, therefore, did not accept
    Porter’s notice of appeal, we later construed Porter’s habeas petition as a request
    for relief from default and granted that request. We directed the trial court to
    accept and process his notice of appeal.
    On October 1, 2013, Porter’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
    People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende) in which no issues were raised.
    The brief included a declaration from counsel that he had reviewed the record and
    had sent Porter a letter advising him that such a brief would be filed and that he
    could file a supplemental brief if he chose to. The next day, this court sent Porter
    a letter advising him that a Wende brief had been filed and that he had 30 days to
    submit a brief raising any issues he wanted us to consider. He did not file a
    supplemental brief.
    We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s
    attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues
    exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 
    528 U.S. 259
    ; Wende, supra, 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    .)
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    RUBIN, ACTING P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    FLIER, J.
    GRIMES, J.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B249110

Filed Date: 12/24/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021