P. v. Ratliff CA5

Filed 3/8/13 P. v. Ratliff 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F064236

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. F10601292, F11905761)

ALBERT ELDRIDGE RATLIFF, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. D. Tyler Tharpe, Judge. James F. Johnson, 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 Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Poochigian, J.

On September 3, 2010, in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F10601292 (first case), appellant, Albert Eldridge Ratliff, pled guilty to a single count of willful infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). On November 9, 2010, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years‟ formal probation. On November 1, 2011, in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F11905761 (second case), appellant pled guilty to a single count of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)), and based on that plea, the court found appellant to be in violation of probation in the first case. On December 2, 2011, the court imposed the two-year lower term in the second case and a concurrent two-year term in the first case. On January 3, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal covering both cases and requested the court issue a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). The court denied that request. Appellant‟s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court‟s invitation to submit additional briefing. FACTS First Case1 On August 21, 2010, the person identified in the report of the probation officer in the first case as the “Confidential Victim” (CV) told Fresno County Sheriff‟s Department (FCSD) deputies the following: She and appellant had been living together for