P.

P. v. Campanella CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 2013B244793California271 words

Opinion

Opinion

Suzukawa, J.

DISCUSSION

After reviewing the record on appeal, defendant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asking this court to examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.1 We sent a letter to defendant advising him that he had 30 days to submit a supplemental brief setting forth any issues that he wished us to consider. On February 4, 2013, we received defendant’s letter.

1 Counsel contends defendant is entitled to additional presentence custody credits. He will file a motion in the superior court to correct the sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1237.1.)

2 Defendant raises three arguments. First, he cites issues regarding his preliminary hearing on the original charges. As defendant’s appeal is from the court’s order finding him in violation of probation and he pled no contest, we have no jurisdiction to consider matters that occurred prior to his plea. Second, conceding that he submitted three dirty drug tests, defendant nonetheless contends he was in compliance with the terms and conditions of probation. The court’s finding that defendant violated his probation is amply supported by the evidence. Third, defendant urges that he is ready to be released from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.