People v. Greene CA1/1

Filed 4/16/15 P. v. Greene CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

PIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A142644, A143067 v. ADOLPH PATRICK GREENE, (Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. FCR307292, Defendant and Appellant. FCR307527)

Defendant Adolph Patrick Greene appeals from judgments entered on pleas of no contest in two cases.1 His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Greene was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm, although we order certain written probation conditions to be modified to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. In May 2014, Greene was charged in case no. FCR307292 with one felony count of second degree robbery and one felony count of second degree commercial burglary after he stole $14 worth of clothing and shoes from Thrift Center, a Fairfield store, and

1 We granted Greene’s motion to consolidate the two appeals.

1

threatened a store employee with a knife when asked to pay for the merchandise.2 About a week later, he was charged in case no. FCR307527 with one felony count of petty theft with a prior conviction after he stole $43 worth of items from a Wal-Mart store in Fairfield.3 In that case, it was also alleged that he had eight prior convictions with a prison term.4 Under a plea agreement, Greene pleaded no contest to a new count of grand theft in the first case in exchange for dismissal of the original two charges,5 and he pleaded no contest to the petty-theft count in the second case in exchange for dismissal of the prior- conviction allegations. Two other unrelated cases against him were also terminated. The trial court found that unusual circumstances existed warranting probation even though Greene would otherwise have been ineligible for it. These circumstances included the nature of the offenses, that Greene’s “participat[ion] in the crimes [was] largely due to his homelessness, mental illness[,] and addiction to narcotics,” and that the prosecutor did not object. The court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed him on three years of formal probation in both cases on the condition that he serve concurrent terms of 365 days in county jail. The written probation terms entered in both cases and the trial court’s oral pronouncement of those terms differ in two slight respects, and we conclude that the oral pronouncement controls in both instances. (See People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1346 [“if the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts cannot be reconciled, the part of the record that will prevail is the one that should be given greater credence in the circumstances of the case”].) First, the trial court ordered Greene to “stay out of Wal[-]Mart in Solano County and the Thrift Center in Fairfield,” but the written