P. v. Snow CA5

Filed 3/4/13 P. v. Snow 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F063438 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10CM2357) v.

GERALD STUART SNOW, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Steven D. Barnes, Judge.

John K. Cotter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Detjen, J.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS On October 4, 2010, appellant, Gerald Stuart Snow, pled no contest to an allegation that he feloniously transported narcotics for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), count 2). Appellant admitted enhancements alleging that he had a qualifying prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and prior narcotics convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)). A felony narcotics allegation and two misdemeanor allegations were dismissed. On November 22, 2010, the trial court found appellant eligible for treatment pursuant to Proposition 36, suspended execution of appellant’s sentence without selecting a term of confinement, and placed appellant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions. Appellant did not appeal from these orders. On April 15, 2011, the court conducted a hearing on an alleged violation of probation. Carma Javaux testified that appellant struck her in the face. The court continued the matter until April 21, 2011, and modified appellant’s conditions of probation to include a no-contact order as to Javaux. On September 2, 2011, the court conducted a new hearing concerning whether appellant violated the conditions of his probation. Javaux testified that after appellant had been released from custody on or about June 24, 2011, appellant had contact with Javaux at her residence. Appellant was under a restraining order not to contact Javaux. Appellant had an argument with Javaux because he insisted that she take him to purchase methamphetamine. Javaux could not understand why he would want methamphetamine after detoxing from it a third time. Javaux dropped appellant off at a location where he purchased methamphetamine. Appellant smoked the methamphetamine and resumed his argument with Javaux. The two went back to Javaux’s residence. When Javaux asked appellant to leave, he refused to do so and became physically forceful, pushing Javaux around and intimidating