People v. Sypho CA4/1 ( 2015 )

Filed 9/30/15 P. v. Sypho CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D067984
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD255848,
SCD257666)
THEDFORD SYPHO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
David M. Szumowski, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven J. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In case number SCD255848 (case one), Thedford Sypho pleaded guilty to
carrying a dirk or dagger and possessing methamphetamine. The trial court
suspended imposition of sentence and placed Sypho on probation for a period of
three years. In case number SCD257666 (case two), Sypho pleaded guilty to
resisting an executive officer. The plea provided Sypho credit for time served,
concurrent with the sentence imposed for a revocation of probation in case one.
Sypho later appeared before the court for probation violations in both cases.
Sypho admitted that he failed to remain law-abiding and the trial court revoked
probation. The probation department recommended a two-year sentence in local
custody. In case two, the trial court reinstated probation on the condition that Sypho
serve 300 days in custody. He received credit for 111 days of actual custody and
110 days of Penal Code section 4019 custody. In case one, the court reinstated
probation on the condition that Sypho serve 365 days in custody. He received credit
for 204 days of actual custody. Sypho waived Penal Code section 4019 credits as an
alternative to the sentence recommended by probation. The trial court stayed all
fines, fees or costs in both cases. Sypho timely appealed both cases.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436
(Wende). We granted Sypho permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has
not responded.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, has disclosed no reasonably
arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Sypho on this
appeal.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
3