P. v. Key CA6 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/19/13 P. v. Key CA6
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          H038455
    (Monterey County
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   Super. Ct. No. SS091686)
    v.
    WILLIAM JAMES KEY,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Appellant William James Key has a long history of drug related offenses. He
    appeals from a judgment entered after he was found to have violated his probation and
    after his latest conviction for child endangerment.
    In 2009, appellant was charged with three separate counts of possession of a
    controlled substance (count 1, heroin, Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count 2,
    oxycodone, Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); and count 3, diazepam, Health &
    Saf. Code, § 11375, subd. (b)(2)), and with an additional misdemeanor charge for
    resisting arrest. (Count 4, Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) On July 13, 2009, he pled
    guilty to counts 1 and 4. Appellant was placed on probation as to count 4; as to count 1,
    deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) was recommended, then granted on August 18, 2009.
    On November 5, 2009, a first violation of probation was alleged for a new offense
    of violating Penal Code section 4573.6 (jail controlled substance charge). On
    April 14, 2010, the trial court found appellant in violation of the DEJ terms. On
    June 8, 2010, the court terminated DEJ and imposed drug court supervision. On
    January 21, 2011, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant
    on probation with various conditions.
    Subsequently, on February 17, 2012, the court terminated appellant from drug
    court for violations, summarily revoked probation, and issued a bench warrant. On April
    23, 2012, further violations of probation were alleged for failure to report to drug
    treatment court, as well as new drug charges for possession of a smoking pipe (Health &
    Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)), child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)), and
    possession of a syringe (former Bus. & Prof. Code § 4140), and failure to abstain from
    use of drugs. On May 1, 2012, appellant pled no contest to the Penal Code section 273a,
    subdivision (a), child neglect charge as a misdemeanor, and admitted a violation of
    probation based solely on this newly alleged violations of law.
    On June 14, 2012, the court ordered that probation be revoked and reinstated in the
    2009 case, with a 25 day jail sentence, and 25 days credit for time served. On the new
    misdemeanor case, the court granted probation on the condition that appellant serve 180
    days in jail, but awarded no credits. Counsel for appellant objected to the denial of
    credits pursuant to People v. Bruner (1995) 
    9 Cal.4th 1178
    , arguing that dual credits
    were proper because the probation violation was based on the new violation and that the
    custody time was served for both. The court overruled the objection. A timely notice of
    appeal challenging the sentencing ensued on June 15, 2012.
    On December 20, 2012, while the appeal was pending, the trial court reconsidered
    its order on credits in the misdemeanor case, and awarded 112 days of credits, based on
    56 actual days and 56 days of conduct credits.
    Thereafter, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the
    facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written
    argument in her own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed and we have
    received nothing from the defendant. Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v.
    2
    Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    , we have reviewed the record but have found no arguable
    issues on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    _____________________________________
    RUSHING, P.J.
    WE CONCUR:
    _________________________________
    PREMO, J.
    _________________________________
    ELIA, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: H038455

Filed Date: 6/19/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021