People v. Bounthavy CA5

Filed 9/2/15 P. v. Bounthavy CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F069056 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. F09906439 & v. F10902975)

PAVID AM BOUNTHAVY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. W. Kent Levis, Judge.† J. Edward Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Peña, J. † Retired Judge of the Fresno Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION Appellant/defendant Pavid Am Bounthavy was placed on probation after he pleaded guilty to narcotics and firearm offenses. After two violations, the court revoked probation and sentenced him to prison. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm. FACTS Case No. F09906439 On November 10, 2009, defendant was found in possession of Ecstasy, a controlled substance. On November 13, 2009, a complaint was filed in case No. F09906439, charging defendant with count I, felony possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). On or about November 16, 2009, defendant pleaded guilty and was placed on formal probation for two years. He was ordered to enroll, attend, and complete a drug treatment program pursuant to Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (a)).1 Defendant’s performance on Proposition 36 probation was poor. He failed to submit to weekly drug tests and had excessive absences from the drug treatment program. On February 11, 2010, he was terminated from the treatment program for failing to complete group sessions. Case No. F10902975 Shortly before midnight on June 10, 2010, officers conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in Fresno. Defendant was sitting in the right rear seat. An officer recognized defendant as a member of the Laos Blood gang based on prior contacts. The officer