People v. Bass CA1/3

Filed 8/19/15 P. v. Bass CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143560 v. ERIC H. BASS, (Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. FCR292458, Defendant and Appellant. FCR299028)

This is an appeal from orders in two criminal matters (case nos. FCR292458 and FCR299028) revoking the mandatory supervision of defendant Eric H. Bass based upon his admission of a violation of one of its terms and conditions – to wit, the requirement that he maintain contact with the probation department. After defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende), in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (People v. Kelly).) Counsel attests that defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but defendant has not exercised such right. We have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende. For reasons set forth below, we agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Case Number FCR292458. On May 15, 2012, defendant entered a no-contest plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and admitted having served two prior prison terms for felony offenses (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).1 Pursuant to this negotiated plea, the trial court thereafter sentenced defendant to a three- year, four-month split sentence, consisting of six months in county jail and two years, ten months of mandatory supervision. (§ 1170, subd. (h).) Twice thereafter, on September 18, 2012, and August 27, 2013, defendant admitted violations of the terms of this mandatory supervision.2 In addition, on April 22, 2014, he was found by the trial court to be in violation of a term of the mandatory supervision. Based upon the September 18, 2012 admitted violation, the court revoked his mandatory supervision, but then reinstated it less than two months later. Based upon the August 27, 2013 admitted violation, the court ordered him to serve an additional 240 days in custody before awarding him 240 days of custody credit and continuing mandatory supervision. Finally, based upon the April 22, 2014 finding of a violation, the court ordered him to serve an additional 176 days in custody, awarded him 176 days of custody credit, and again reinstated mandatory supervision. On August 12, 2014, defendant admitted another violation of mandatory supervision. The trial court revoked his mandatory supervision, and ordered him to serve three years and four months in custody, to be served consecutively with his sentence in a separate case, number FCR299028, which is discussed below. The court also awarded defendant 670 days of custody credit and 417 days of conduct credit. On November 3, 2014, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and his request for a certificate of probable cause was thereafter granted.