 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Salo2/20/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
John R. Salo appeals from the revocation of his probation and his commitment to state prison. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
In January 2000, the court sentenced appellant to the aggravated term of four years in state prison for corporal injury of a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and a consecutive year in the county jail for injury of a telephone line (§ 591), a misdemeanor. The court then suspended execution of sentence for a period of four years.
In October 2000, at the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the court found appellant in violation of the terms of his probation. In December, the court reinstated appellant's probation.
In January 2001, the court granted the probation department's motion to summarily revoke appellant's probation based on the allegation that appellant suffered an arrest in Humboldt County for driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). In February 2001, the probation department amended its motion to further allege that appellant made improper contact with the victim of his felony.
Appellant admitted that he violated the terms of his probation by failing to obey all laws and abstain from the use of alcohol.
The court permanently revoked appellant's probation and imposed his previously stayed prison term of four years in state prison for corporal injury of a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and a consecutive year in the county jail for injuring a telephone line (§ 591). The court granted appellant 493 days' total presentence credit and ordered him to pay a $1,000 restitution fine.
Appellant has filed a supplemental brief in which he alleges he received less than adequate representation from counsel. This allegation is based on private conversations he had with counsel and is not supported by anything contained in the record before this court. Accordingly, the issue is not cognizable on appeal.
Appellant wishes to raise evidentiary issues relating to his guilty plea. Such issues also are not cognizable on appeal from a plea of guilty (§ 1237.5).
Finally, appellant raises questions about his custody credits. These questions must first be addressed to the trial court (§ 1237.1).
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
There was no sentencing error.
There are no issues that require further briefing.
The order revoking probation and imposing appellant's previously stayed prison term is affirmed.
We concur:
Kline, P. J.
Haerle, J.
Page 1 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|