 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Gillotti2/14/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Steven Austin Gillotti appeals after the trial court revoked his probation and executed a previously imposed six-year state prison term. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 13, 2000, appellant pleaded guilty to rape by use of intoxicant (Pen. Code § 261, subd. (a)(3)); sodomy by anesthesia or controlled substance (§ 286, subd. (i)); and battery on a person with whom the defendant has a dating relationship (§ 242/243, subd. (e)(1)). On September 28, 2000, the trial court sentenced appellant to two concurrent middle terms of six years, ordered execution of the sentence suspended, and placed appellant on three years of probation.
On January 18, 2001, the trial court issued a notice of probation violation, summarily revoked appellant's probation, and issued a bench warrant for appellant's arrest. Following a probation revocation hearing, the court found that appellant had violated his probation and, on June 11, 2001, ordered that the previously imposed sentence be executed.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on June 18, 2001.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
After he was placed on probation in Humboldt County, appellant moved to Orange County with the consent of the probation department, where he was placed under "courtesy supervision" by the Orange County probation department.
Kathleen Snow, an Orange County deputy probation officer, testified at the probation revocation hearing that she had supervised appellant in Orange County. Appellant, who had been ordered to attend a sex offender treatment program, was placed in at least three such programs while Snow was supervising him. He was terminated from all of the programs due to failure to participate adequately or aggressive behavior. In addition, appellant failed to report to Snow as required on two occasions. Moreover, during a search of appellant's house, Snow found two pornographic videotapes.
Toward the end of December 2000, appellant informed Snow that he had been arrested for driving under the influence and that he was unable to stop drinking. Snow obtained a copy of the California Highway Patrol report regarding his arrest for driving under the influence.
At the conclusion of the probation revocation hearing, the trial court found appellant in violation of four conditions of probation, by a preponderance of the evidence. These conditions included the requirements that he (1) abstain from use of alcohol, (2) not possess sexually explicit materials, (3) successfully complete a sexual offender treatment program, and (4) report to his probation officer.
DISCUSSION
Appellant was afforded notice and a hearing in this matter, and he was effectively represented by counsel during the probation revocation proceedings. In addition, there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellant violated the conditions of his probation.
There are no meritorious issues to be argued.
The order revoking appellant's probation and executing the previously imposed prison sentence is affirmed.
We concur:
Haerle, J.
Lambden, J.
Page 1 2 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|