People v. Reed CA5 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Filed 8/24/16 P. v. Reed CA5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    THE PEOPLE,
    F069779
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    (Merced Super. Ct.
    v.                                                    Nos. CRM024331, CRM025178 &
    CRM032418)
    CURTIS LEE REED,
    Defendant and Appellant.                                                        OPINION
    THE COURT*
    APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Merced County. Ronald W.
    Hansen, Judge.
    Peter J. Boldin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
    Respondent.
    -ooOoo-
    *   Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
    INTRODUCTION
    Appellant/defendant Curtis Lee Reed entered pleas in a series of cases and was
    placed on probation. He repeatedly violated probation by committing new offenses. The
    court subsequently revoked probation and sentenced him to state prison. On appeal, his
    appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts with citations to the record,
    raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v.
    Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    (Wende).) We affirm.
    FACTS1
    Case No. CRM024331
    At approximately 8:35 p.m. on September 3, 2012, Merced Police Officer
    McComb responded to a dispatch that an unknown man was in the reporting party’s
    apartment at an apartment complex on Park Avenue. The reporting party further stated
    that the man possessed methamphetamine and there might be a warrant for him.
    When Officer McComb and other officers arrived, the reporting party let them into
    the apartment. The officers found defendant cooking in the kitchen. Defendant falsely
    identified himself as “Charles Ogaltree.” Upon further questioning, defendant gave his
    true name and said he was on parole. Defendant was searched and had 0.29 grams of
    methamphetamine in his pocket.
    Procedural history
    On October 19, 2012, defendant pleaded no contest in case No. CRM024331 to
    felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and
    admitted one prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court
    placed him on probation for 36 months, and ordered him to serve 92 days in jail.
    1Given defendant’s pleas and admissions, the facts of the underlying offenses are
    from the police reports, which are part of the instant appellate record.
    2.
    Case No. CRM025178
    Around 10:26 p.m. on October 29, 2012, Merced Police Officers Rasmussen and
    Sapien responded to a dispatch about a suspicious person looking into vehicles on
    Meadows Avenue. The officers arrived in the area and detained defendant because he
    matched the suspect’s description. Defendant identified himself, and the officers
    determined he was on parole. They searched him and found a package of gum in his
    pocket which contained credit, debit, and gift cards. One debit card, in another person’s
    name, had been reported stolen in a car burglary earlier that year.
    The officers asked defendant where he found the stolen debit card. Defendant said
    he just found it, and it had probably expired.
    Procedural history
    On November 16, 2012, defendant pleaded no contest in case No. CRM025178 to
    felony receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him
    to the upper term of three years, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on
    probation for 36 months subject to various terms and conditions, including serving one
    year in county jail.
    On the same day, defendant’s attorney waived the filing of a formal affidavit of a
    probation violation in case No. CRM024331. The court took judicial notice of the felony
    plea defendant entered in case No. CRM025178, and found he violated probation by
    failing to obey all laws. The court revoked and reinstated probation subject to the
    previous terms and conditions.
    Probation Violations
    On or about April 5, 2013, an affidavit was filed which alleged defendant violated
    probation in case Nos. CRM024331 and CRM025178, by failing to obey all laws, based
    on his possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)(1))
    on April 1, 2013. On April 17, 2013, defendant admitted the violation. The court
    3.
    reinstated probation in both cases subject to the same terms and conditions, and ordered
    him to serve 20 days in jail in each case.
    On or about May 1, 2013, an affidavit was filed which alleged defendant violated
    probation in case Nos. CRM024331 and CRM025178, by failing to report to his
    probation officer within one business day after being released from custody on April 29,
    2013. On July 18, 2013, defendant admitted the violation in both cases. The court again
    reinstated him on probation and ordered him to serve 30 days in jail for each case.
    On or about August 1, 2013, an affidavit was filed which alleged defendant
    violated probation in case Nos. CRM024331 and CRM025178, by failing to report to his
    probation officer within one business day after his release from custody. On August 8,
    2013, defendant admitted the violation. The court again reinstated probation and ordered
    him to serve 30 days in jail in each case.
    On September 18, 2013, another petition was filed which alleged defendant
    violated probation in case Nos. CRM024331 and CRM025178, for failing to report to his
    probation officer as directed, on four different occasions in August and September 2013.
    On October 3, 2013, defendant admitted the violation. The court again reinstated
    probation and ordered him to serve 45 days in jail for each case.
    On or about October 30, 2013, an affidavit was filed in both cases which alleged
    defendant violated probation by failing to report to his probation officer on three
    occasions in October 2013.
    Case No. CRM032418
    On the night of March 19, 2014, officers from the Merced Police Department
    contacted defendant and another individual in the alley of W. 18th Street. The officers
    determined defendant had four outstanding felony warrants and one misdemeanor
    warrant, and arrested him. The officers searched defendant, and found 0.41 grams of
    methamphetamine, two hypodermic needles, and a glass pipe. They also found a knife
    that had a five and one-quarter inch blade.
    4.
    Procedural history
    On March 24, 2014, defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint in case
    No. CRM032418, for unlawfully carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code,
    § 21310); possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); and
    misdemeanor possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1,
    subd. (a)(1)); with one prior strike conviction; an onbail enhancement (Pen. Code,
    § 12022.1); and two prior prison term enhancements.
    On the same day, defendant was arraigned on the October 30, 2013, affidavit for
    violating probation.
    On April 11, 2014, defendant was arraigned on a first amended affidavit for
    violating probation in case Nos. CRM024331 and CRM025178, by failing to report to his
    probation officers on three occasions in October 2013, and failing to obey all laws based
    on the offenses committed on March 19, 2014.
    On May 5, 2014, defendant pleaded no contest in case No. CRM032418, to felony
    possession of a dirk or dagger, and admitted two prior prison term enhancements. The
    court granted his motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction.
    The court granted defendant’s motion for a pass to be released from jail at 10:00
    a.m. and return at 4:00 p.m. on May 7, 2014, to address personal matters prior to being
    sentenced to state prison.
    The court set the sentencing hearing for all outstanding cases on May 12, 2014.
    The court stated that in case No. CRM032418, defendant would be sentenced to the lower
    term of 16 months plus one year for the enhancement if he appeared for the sentencing
    hearing. If he failed to appear, he would be sentenced to the upper term of three years
    plus two years for the enhancements.
    Failure to Appear
    On May 12, 2014, defendant failed to appear for the sentencing hearing, and the
    court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
    5.
    On May 14, 2014, defendant was arraigned on the return for the bench warrant.
    State Prison Sentences
    On May 21, 2014, the court conducted the sentencing hearings for the three
    pending cases.
    In case No. CRM032418, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three
    years for possession of a dirk or dagger, plus two years for the two prior prison term
    enhancements, for an aggregate term of five years.
    In case No. CRM025178, the court found defendant violated probation based on
    his conviction in case No. CRM032418. The court ordered the execution of the
    previously suspended sentence of three years for receiving stolen property, to run
    concurrent with the term imposed in case No. CRM032418.
    In case No. CRM024331, the court found defendant violated probation based on
    his conviction in case No. CRM032418. The court revoked probation and sentenced him
    to the upper term of three years for possession of a controlled substance, plus one year for
    the prior prison term enhancement, with the sentence to run concurrent to the term
    imposed in case No. CRM032418.
    On June 4, 2014, the court corrected defendant’s custody credits.
    Notices of Appeal
    On April 11, July 18, and August 4, 2014, defendant filed timely notices of appeal
    in all three cases. He did not request or receive certificates of probable cause.
    DISCUSSION
    As noted above, defendant’s counsel has filed a Wende brief with this court. The
    brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was
    advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on August 10, 2015, we
    invited defendant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
    After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable
    factual or legal issues exist.
    6.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgments are affirmed.
    7.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F069779

Filed Date: 8/24/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021