People v. Smith CA4/2 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/11/20 P. v. Smith CA4/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E074953
    v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FVI19000315)
    KAHILL DARRELL SMITH,                                                   OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Tony Raphael,
    Judge. Affirmed.
    Correen Ferrentino, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Defendant and appellant Kahill Darrell Smith appeals from an order of the San
    Bernardino Superior Court denying his motion to dismiss the People’s petition for
    revocation of his probation. We will affirm.
    1
    DISCUSSION
    After being evaluated for mental competency and found competent to stand trial,
    defendant pled guilty in June 2019 to making criminal threats in violation of Penal Code
    section 422. As part of the plea agreement, defendant was placed on felony probation
    with mental health terms for 36 months. The court withheld imposition of the judgment
    for 36 months.
    In August 2019, defendant was terminated from two programs he was required by
    his probation to participate in (Seeking Safety and Substance Abuse Education). That
    month, he also telephoned his probation officer to say he had moved but did not follow
    the officer’s direction to come in on or before a certain date to complete a change of
    address form. In August and September, he failed to report to his probation officer. On
    September 29, 2019, the People filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation and to
    obtain a warrant for his arrest.
    Following another mental health evaluation that established defendant’s
    competency, the court offered him three options: proceed in mental health court; have an
    evidentiary hearing on the issue whether he violated his probation; or admit the violation
    and serve 16 months in state prison. Defendant admitted the violation, and the court
    sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in state prison, with 432 days credit (216 for
    time served and 216 conduct credits).
    Defendant appealed, and this court appointed counsel to represent him.
    2
    DISCUSSION
    Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende
    (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S 738 setting forth
    statements of the case and facts, and one potential arguable issue: whether the trial court
    erred when it revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to the low term in state
    prison. Counsel also posits this court is required to undertake a review of the entire
    record.
    We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
    he has not done.
    Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , we have
    conducted an independent review of the record and found no arguable issues.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    RAMIREZ
    P. J.
    We concur:
    McKINSTER
    J.
    MILLER
    J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E074953

Filed Date: 12/11/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/11/2020