People v. Wormley CA1/2

Filed 2/24/14 P. v. Wormley CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139577 v. RONALD WORMLEY, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SCO72217A) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ronald Wormley appeals from the order of the San Mateo Superior Court denying his motion for early termination of probation and dismissal of the charges against him. His appellate counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). In accordance with Wende and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the order. BACKGROUND In November 2010, the San Mateo County District Attorney charged defendant by information with petty theft of the East Palo Alto Home Depot in violation of Penal Code section 6661 (punishment for subsequent conviction of petty theft after prior theft crime conviction), having been convicted of, and served a term for, three prior violations of

1 All statutory references herein are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

1

section 666, which occurred in 1991, 1998, and 2007, and a violation of section 496 (receiving or concealing stolen property) in 1991. The information further alleged pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(4) (barring grant of probation except in unusual cases) that defendant had been convicted of three prior felonies, they being violations of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5 (possession of cocaine base for sale) in 2004 and 1989, and a violation of section 666 in 1991. Initially, defendant was represented by a public defender, but the court granted defendant’s motion, made pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, for appointment of new counsel. Although the record indicates that defendant’s Marsden motion was denied, appellate counsel states in a declaration attached to his Wende brief: “With respect to the Marsden hearing . . . , [defendant] has confirmed to me that it was resolved in his favor and different counsel was appointed on his behalf as he requested.” Defendant, after first entering a plea of not guilty, sought in April 2011 to change his plea to one of no contest to a violation of section 666, a felony. After he was advised of his legal and constitutional rights, maximum penalties and the consequences of pleas and admissions, the court accepted his plea and found him guilty of the charge. It found defendant had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his legal and constitutional rights, he had freely and voluntarily entered his plea, and the plea had a factual basis. The remaining special allegations as to priors and/or overt acts were stricken. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant supervised probation for three years, subject to certain terms and conditions that were accepted by defendant. These included that he pay a $200 probation revocation fine, which was stayed pending successful completion of probation; a fine of $200 to the restitution fund; a criminal conviction assessment of $30; a court security surcharge fee of $40; and a supervised probation fee of $75 per month, which was not a condition of probation. Defendant was to serve 120 days in county jail, with credit for time served, and subject to all standard conditions of probation.