People v. Richards CA1/3

Filed 6/27/16 P. v. Richards CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A145948 v. JOHN HENRY RICHARDS, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC193198A) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant John Henry Richards appeals from a July 2, 2015, judgment, entered following a contested hearing at which he was found to have violated the terms of his post release community supervision (PRCS; see Pen. Code, § 3451, subd. (a)1). The court reinstated defendant’s PRCS subject to the condition that he serve 180 days in county jail, with credit for time served of 96 days. Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and asks us to independently review the record and suggests two arguable issues.2 We affirm.

1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 As required under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note that appellate counsel has informed us that he has written to defendant at his last known address advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief and defendant has not filed such a brief.

1

FACTS A. Sonoma County Proceedings On May 3, 2010, the Sonoma County District Attorney filed an amended information charging defendant with the misdemeanor offense of intentional interference with a lawful business establishment (§ 602.1, subd. (a)) (count one); the felony offense of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count two); the felony offense of attempting to deter a police officer from performance of his duties by threats (§ 69) (count three); the misdemeanor offense of resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count four); and the misdemeanor offense of elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (c)) (count five). The amended information further alleged, in pertinent part, that defendant had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5). On September 3, 2010, at a change of plea proceeding, defendant pleaded no contest to the felony offense of attempting to deter a police officer from the performance of his duties by threats (count three) and the misdemeanor offense of elder abuse (count five), and he further admitted he had served two prior prison terms. In his written plea agreement, defendant understood that the maximum punishment he might receive was a determinate term of five years in state prison followed by parole for three to four years. The prosecution agreed to dismiss counts one, two, and four. On November 5, 2010, defendant was sentenced to an aggregated term of five years in state prison. The execution of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation for four years under the supervision of the Sonoma County probation department. On April 14, 2011, after defendant changed his residence, jurisdiction of the case was transferred to the Marin County probation department. B. Marin County Proceedings 1. Background In January 2014, following a hearing at which defendant admitted to violating the terms of his probation, the court revoked defendant’s probationary term. On February 20, 2014, defendant’s probation was terminated and the previously suspended sentence of five years in state prison was imposed pursuant to section 1170. Defendant was granted