Filed 7/3/13 P. v. Brennan CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 8.111.5. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

JAMES THOMAS BRENNAN, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B244380 

(Super. Ct. No. BA394829) 

(Super. Ct. No. BA399400) 

 (Los Angeles County) 

MODIFICATION OF OPINION 

[No Change in Judgment] 

THE COURT: 

 It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 25, 2012, be modified as follows: 

 On the last line of the last paragraph on page 2, after the words "he was" insert the 

word "not" so the sentence will then read: 

 On September 18, 2012, appellant appeared in court and argued that he was not 

given the opportunity to enter a drug treatment program. 

 No change in judgment. 

 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
Filed 6/25/13 (unmodified version) 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 8.111.5. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

JAMES THOMAS BRENNAN, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B244380 

(Super. Ct. No. BA394829) 

(Super. Ct. No. BA399400) 

(Los Angeles County) 

James Thomas Brennan appeals from a September 18, 2012 order revoking 

probation and sentencing him to concurrent three-year state prison terms in case numbers 

BA394829 and BA399400. 

 In Case No. BA394829 appellant pled to guilty possession for sale of 

cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted suffering two prior 

strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d))1 and three 

prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to an March 15, 2012 open 

plea agreement, appellant was conditionally released to enroll and complete a one-year 

residential drug treatment program at the Los Angeles Transition Center (LATC). 

 On April 18, 2012, the trial court issued a bench warrrant after it received a 

letter from LATC reporting that appellant was terminated from the program. The trial 

court recalled the bench warrant on April 20, 2012, and ordered appellant to return to 

LATC and complete the one-year residential program. 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 
2

 On July 19, 2012, appellant was held to answer in case number BA399400 

after he was arrested on new charges of possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11350, subd. (a).) On August 27, 2012, appellant entered a nolo contendre plea to 

possession of cocaine base, admitted suffering two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, 

subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d))2 and four prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, 

subd. (b)), and admitted that he was out on bail in case number BA394829 when he 

committed the offense (§ 12022.1). 

 Appellant waived his Arbuckle rights in both cases (People v. Arbuckle 

(1978) 22 Cal.3d 749) and was conditionally released to enroll in and complete a oneyear treatment program at First to Serve. Appellant was ordered to return to court on 

August 27, 2013, for probation and sentencing. The trial court stated that if appellant 

successfully completed the one-year residential treatment program, it would strike the 

prior strike enhancements in both cases, grant three years probation in both cases, and 

award credit for the time appellant was in the treatment program. Appellant was warned 

that "[i]f you don't [complete the residential treatment program], it's an open plea, and I'm 

going to send you to prison." 

 The trial court ordered the sheriff to deliver appellant to the First to Serve 

drug residential treatment program but appellant was dropped off at the Homeless Health 

Care Center. On September 7, 2012, the trial court approved appellant's treatment at the 

Homeless Healthcare Center and ordered appellant to return to court on October 16, 

2012. 

 On September 13 2012, motions were filed to revoke probation in Case 

Nos. BA394829 and BA399400 after appellant was charged in a third case with 

possession of methamphetamine (Case No. BA402534) 

 On September 18, 2012, appellant appeared in court and argued that he was 

given the opportunity to enter a residential drug treatment program. The trial court 

revoked probation in number BA394829 and BA399400, found that appellant abandoned 

 

2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 
3

the one-year residential drug treatment program, struck the prior strike enhancements in 

each case, and in each case, sentenced appellant to three years state prison and imposed 

and stayed the one-year enhancements on the prison prior enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. 

(b)). In each case, appellant was ordered to pay a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. 

(b)), a $240 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 

11372.5, subd. (a)) a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction 

assessment. (Gov. Code, § 70373.) The third case, case number BA402534, was 

dismissed pursuant to section 1385. 

 We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s 

examination of the record, she filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. 

 On June 4, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to 

personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On June 17, 2013, 

appellant filed a supplemental letter brief, stating among other things, that he was not 

provided the opportunity to participate in a residential treatment program and the trial 

court erred in revoking probation and sentencing appellant to state prison. 

 We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's 

attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 

126.) 

 The judgments in Case Nos. BA399400 and BA394829 are affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 YEGAN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P.J. 

 PERREN, J. 
4

David M. Horwitz, Judge 

Superior Court County of Los Angeles 

______________________________ 

 Marilyn Weiss Alper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Respondent.