People v. Murray CA3

Filed 9/13/16 P. v. Murray CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C080207

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-125757)

v.

MANUEL OLALDE MURRAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Manuel Olalde Murray has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Because the matter was resolved by plea, our statement of facts is taken from the probation report.

1

On October 11, 2013, defendant’s ex-wife called the police and reported that he was attempting to break into her apartment. When police officers contacted defendant’s ex-wife, she explained that defendant had jumped her backyard fence and began banging on her sliding glass door. She further explained that defendant threatened to kill her, and that she fled her apartment with her two children when defendant kicked the front door open. About a week later, defendant was arrested and taken into custody. On January 29, 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422)1 and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)). On February 26, 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for two years, suspended execution of sentence, and placed defendant on formal probation for a term of five years with the condition he serve 120 days in county jail. On June 10, 2015, a first amended petition for revocation of probation was filed, alleging that defendant admitted to using methamphetamine, tested positive for using methamphetamine twice, and committed several new violations of the law. On June 22, 2015, a second petition for revocation was filed, alleging that defendant had violated several provisions of the Vehicle Code. Following a contested hearing on the first amended petition on June 26, 2015, the trial court found that defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation and sentenced him to 180 days in county jail with credit for 160 days already served. On July 10, 2015, a contested hearing was held on the second petition. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation and sentenced him to 30 days in county jail, to run concurrent to the 180- day sentence previously imposed.