People v. Nunerly CA2/3

Filed 10/31/14 P. v. Nunerly CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B251582

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA063209) v.

CA NUNERLY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martin Larry Herscovitz, Judge. Affirmed. Lenore De Vita, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb and Jonathan J. Kline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

On December 1, 2008, Ca Nunerly (appellant) entered a negotiated plea of guilty to counts 2 and 3 of a felony information alleging the January 13, 2008, offenses of making criminal threats with the personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 422, 12022.5, subd. (a)) and to one count of battery, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 242).1 On January 22, 2009, the trial court placed appellant on three years formal probation on conditions inter alia, he serve 210 days in the Ventura county jail and make $6,552.72 in restitution to the victim, Michael Hunt. On October 17, 2011, and October 10, 2012, the trial court ordered extensions of the probationary period respectively, to January 22, 2013, and to December 31, 2013. On September 11, 2013, appellant appeared before the trial court for a progress report. He had not completed restitution. The trial court, over appellant’s objection, continued appellant’s probationary period one year to December 31, 2014. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the September 11, 2013, order. Citing the decision in People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1091 (Cookson) and the proposition a change of circumstances is necessary to extend the probationary period, appellant contends the trial court had no jurisdiction to extend his probation for an additional year. We affirm the order under review. BACKGROUND The original probation report indicated Michael Hunt (Hunt) and his family attended a family party at which the men were watching a football game.2 Appellant and his family were also in attendance. The men were apparently drinking beer. Hunt and appellant had been friends for a number of years as Hunt was a 17-year friend of