People v. Akens CA3 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 4/21/15 P. v. Akens CA3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
    (Sacramento)
    ----
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C075359
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 13F01089)
    v.
    WILLIAM AKENS,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende).
    Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
    We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
    the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 110, 124.)
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    On February 13, 2013, defendant William Akens was found to be in possession of
    a usable amount of methamphetamine. On April 17, 2013, defendant entered a plea of no
    contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) in
    1
    exchange for drug treatment probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1 et seq.1 and
    an indicated low term of 16 months if disqualified or if he failed to complete drug
    treatment probation. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted drug
    treatment probation.
    On July 1, 2013, a petition for revocation of probation was filed alleging that
    defendant committed a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377,
    subdivision (a).
    On July 26, 2013, defendant entered a no-contest plea to misdemeanor theft
    (§ 484) in case No. 13M01860 in exchange for probation for a term of three years with
    credit for time served (30 days). Defendant also admitted violating drug treatment
    probation.
    On September 13, 2013, defendant admitted violating drug treatment probation for
    both drug and non-drug offenses as a result of his arrest in El Dorado County case
    No. P13CRF0252. The court deleted defendant from drug treatment probation for the
    non-drug offense. On September 23, 2013, the prosecutor stated that defendant was “not
    being accepted into drug court” and the court confirmed that defendant was ineligible for
    drug court. On October 7, 2013, the court remanded defendant into custody and
    continued sentencing.
    On October 15, 2013, the court sentenced defendant to 16 months in county jail
    pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h). Pursuant to defense appellate counsel’s
    request, the court modified presentence custody credits and awarded 22 actual days and
    22 conduct days for a total of 44 days.
    1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code at the time of the charged
    offense.
    2
    WENDE REVIEW
    We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
    brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and
    determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    .) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within
    30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we
    received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the
    entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
    to defendant.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    MURRAY                 , J.
    We concur:
    NICHOLSON              , Acting P. J.
    ROBIE                  , J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C075359

Filed Date: 4/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/21/2015