People v. Watson CA1/3

Filed 8/3/21 P. v. Watson CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A158678 v. KEVIN ALAN WATSON, (Del Norte County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CRF16-9015)

Defendant Kevin Alan Watson was granted probation after he pleaded guilty to one felony count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 469d, subd. (a)).1 He violated his probation numerous times, resulting in his probation being revoked and reinstated. Following the fourth revocation petition, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to three years in the county jail. (See § 1170, subd. (h)(5).) Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief in which he raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel informed defendant of his right to submit a supplemental brief and he has not filed one. We have conducted the review and, finding no arguable issues to be briefed, affirm the judgment.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND In March 2016, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felony receiving stolen property (vehicle). In April 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years in county jail. The court suspended execution of the sentence and placed defendant on probation subject to various conditions, including that he serve 270 days in county jail and successfully complete the drug court program. On September 8, 2017, the probation department filed a petition to revoke probation based on defendant’s submission of a diluted urine sample and his failure to provide proof of attendance at his required substance abuse meeting. On October 10, 2017, the probation department filed a second petition for revocation of probation based on defendant’s submission of a positive urine sample, admission of methamphetamine use, and failure to provide proof of attendance at his required substance abuse meeting. On October 19, 2017, defendant admitted the violations as alleged in the first and second revocation petitions.2 The trial court sustained the first and second revocation petitions. Before defendant could be sentenced on the first two petitions, the probation department filed a third petition for revocation, on October 31, 2017, alleging that defendant committed various Vehicle Code offenses (Veh. Code, §§ 12500, 16028, subd. (a), 4462, subd. (b), 4000, subd. (a)(1)). On November 1, 2017, defendant admitted the Vehicle Code violations alleged in the third petition with the exception of failing to provide proof of registration (Veh. Code, § 4462, subd. (b)), which the trial court dismissed.