People v. Scott CA1/2

Filed 8/18/15 P. v. Scott CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A143360 v. STANLEY CAMERON SCOTT, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. Nos. 13-70941 & 14-76917) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Stanley Scott appeals from sentencing in two separate matters that were part of a single negotiated disposition. Defendant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. Defendant has also been informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so. After our independent review of the record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, and we affirm. BACKGROUND Case No. 13-70941 On February 25, 2013, defendant was charged by information with transportation of marijuana, a felony (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)), and a strike allegation based on a prior conviction of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).1

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On May 6, 2013, defendant pled no contest to an added count 2 to the information, charging felony possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), pursuant to a negotiated disposition that included the understanding that he would be sentenced to three years in state prison (the upper term), execution of sentence suspended; he would be placed on five years probation with a county jail sentence of 90-120 days; and the district attorney would dismiss the prior strike allegation. At the change of plea hearing, the judge engaged in an extended voir dire of defendant, and accepted his change of plea. The court found there was a factual basis for the plea. Defendant was sentenced on June 19, 2013, in accordance with the plea agreement, with the condition that he serve 100 days in the county jail. Other fines, fees and assessments were ordered. Defendant stated that he understood the terms of probation and agreed to its terms.2 Defendant signed a written six-page Order of Probation stating that he read and fully understood the requirements of probation and agreed to abide by and obey all of the conditions of probation. On April 16, 2014, the probation office filed a petition alleging a violation of probation based on defendant’s failure to accurately report his residence to the county sheriff and the probation office as required by section 290, despite having admitted to the probation office on March 31, 2014, that he was not accurately reporting his residence and having been given time to do so by the probation office. Case No. 14-76917 On May 1, 2014, defendant was charged in a one-count complaint with failure to register, a felony (§§ 290, subd. (b) and 290.018, subd. (b)) on or about April 15, 2014, with a special allegation that he had been convicted of a felony violation of section 288,