THE PEOPLE v. IRVIN DORANTES

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeal, Second District, California.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IRVIN DORANTES, Defendant and Appellant.

B233545

Decided: January 17, 2012

Lenore De Vita, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Defendant Irvin Dorantes appeals from the order revoking his probation and placing into effect a previously suspended sentence of five years in state prison.

Defendant was arrested again in May 2008 and charged by information with two counts of failing to disclose the origin of a recording and audiovisual work in case No. BA340793.   Count 1 included an allegation that the offense involved at least 100 articles of audio recordings and audiovisual work.   Count 2 included an allegation that he had been previously convicted of the same offense.

On August 14, 2008, defendant, represented by counsel, entered a negotiated plea of no contest in case No. BA340793 to count 1, and admitted the offense involved at least 100 articles of audio recordings or audiovisual work.   In accordance with the plea agreement, imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on three years of formal probation on condition he serve 365 days in county jail, with credit for 135 days served.   The People dismissed the remaining count.   At the same hearing, defendant waived his right to a probation revocation hearing and admitted that his conviction in case No. BA340793 was a violation of his probation in case No. BA333544.   After finding defendant in violation of probation, the trial court agreed to reinstate probation on the same terms and conditions.

Defendant's probation was thereafter summarily revoked following his December 7, 2010 arrest, this time for grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)), after he carried away a wallet that a woman had dropped on the ground.

Rather than file a felony complaint, the People elected to proceed with a probation revocation hearing on March 23, 2011.   Before the hearing commenced, the parties stipulated that a video purportedly depicting the offense would be admitted into evidence.   The parties also stipulated that the alleged victim shown on the video was Alida Idiaquez and, if called as a witness, she would testify that on the morning of December 7, 2010, she left a store on Santee Alley in Los Angeles and dropped her wallet containing $510, a driver's license and credit cards.   The parties further stipulated that defendant was the person shown approaching the victim when she left the store.   After the trial court watched the video, defendant testified, claiming he picked up the wallet from the ground, but then “tossed it” in an elevator because “it didn't have anything in it.”   Defendant then went to work.   Ana Gonzalez, defendant's former employer, testified that police arrived at her store, where defendant worked at the time.   Officers arrested and searched defendant, but found no unaccounted cash or credit cards on his person.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found defendant in violation of probation, declined to reinstate probation and sentenced defendant to the previously stayed state prison term of five years in case No. BA333544.   The court ordered defendant to pay a $30 court security fee, and a $200 restitution fine.   A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to section 1202.45.   Defendant was awarded 297 days of presentence credit (149 actual days and 148 days of conduct credits).   The court terminated probation in case No. BA340793.

On June 2, 2011, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and order revoking his probation.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.

After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.   On October 5, 2011, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.   No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist.  (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277–284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756];  People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106;  People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The order revoking probation and executing the previously suspended state prison sentence of five years is affirmed.

We concur:  

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated..  FN1. Statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

PERLUSS, P. J. ZELON, J.