People v. Langan CA1/5

Filed 9/5/14 P. v. Langan CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140949 v. JOEL MARTIN LANGAN, (Lake County Super. Ct. Nos. CR930933 & Defendant and Appellant. CR 930934-A)

(Mendicino County Super. Ct. No. SC073949A)

Appellant Joel Martin Langan appeals from a judgment following (1) his plea of no contest to two counts of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd (a)) and (2) in a separate case, execution of a sentence previously imposed but stayed, after a finding appellant violated the terms of his probation in that case. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record. We find no arguable appellate issues. We modify the judgment to correct an error in the amount of a fee and, as modified, affirm.

1

BACKGROUND In March 2010, appellant pled guilty in Mendocino County Superior Court to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and admitted four separate prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court imposed a state prison term of nine years but suspended execution and placed appellant on three years’ probation. His probation conditions included a requirement that he obey all laws. Appellant waived all accrued custody credits. (People v. Johnson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1050.) He was released into a residential drug treatment program for which he was to receive day for day custody credits upon successful completion of the program. Appellant did not appeal. Subsequently, appellant’s case was transferred to San Mateo County and then Lake County. In October 2012, a complaint was filed against appellant in Lake County Superior Court alleging multiple counts of possession of controlled substances. Appellant subsequently pled no contest to two counts of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and the remaining counts were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. The plea agreement provided the sentences on the two counts were to run concurrently if probation was denied. Appellant was advised, prior to pleading no contest, that his plea could result in a finding that he violated his probation. Appellant admitted the factual basis for his possession of controlled substances plea. Accordingly, the court found appellant violated, in the robbery case, his probation term to obey all laws. At the sentencing hearing, appellant requested probation. He testified that, shortly after his arrest for possession of controlled substances, he returned to a residential drug treatment program and wanted to continue in that program. The court noted appellant had a criminal record dating from 1987 with a fairly consistent pattern of criminal activity, including nine prior felony convictions. This record required the court to deny probation unless it found it to be an unusual case where the interests of justice would be best served by granting probation. (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4).) The court found this case was not such an unusual case.