People v. Susoeff CA3

Filed 12/9/15 P. v. Susoeff CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C076418

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF130507)

MARK CLAYTON SUSOEFF,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Mark Clayton Susoeff asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

1

On August 31, 2013, defendant met his girlfriend Anita outside a Walmart. They argued, defendant hit Anita in the head and face, knocking out one of her teeth. Anita called the police and reported the attack. Defendant was later arrested. When defendant was taken into custody, the police found methamphetamine and marijuana in the backpack he was carrying. The People charged defendant in Yuba County Superior Court case No. CRF-13- 507 (case No. 507) with abuse of a cohabitant resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (e)--count 1) and possession of paraphernalia for injecting or smoking a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, former § 11364.1-- count 2)1. Defendant pled no contest to abuse of a cohabitant, resulting in a traumatic condition. In exchange, the People agreed defendant would serve no more than three years in state prison and the remaining charge would be dismissed. The People also agreed to postpone sentencing to allow defendant the opportunity to complete a drug treatment program, which, if he completed it successfully, would permit defendant to argue for probation at sentencing. Defendant was immediately transported to the Salvation Army drug treatment facility. Defendant failed to appear at the next hearing and his release on his own recognizance was revoked without bail. At that hearing, the court learned defendant left the Salvation Army drug treatment program. When defendant appeared in court on September 27, 2013, he was taken into custody and ordered to return to court on October 16, 2013. The matter was continued twice in light of new charges pending in