1

Filed 12/11/23 P. v. Degorio CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DALE JOSEPH DEGORIO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A167926

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. No. VCR239160)

Defendant Dale Joseph Degorio was granted probation after he pleaded 

no contest to possession of a stolen vehicle and admitted a prior conviction. 

(Pen. Code,1 §§ 496d, subd. (a), 666.5.) He now appeals from an order 

revoking probation and sentencing him to three years in state prison. His 

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

(Wende) that raises no issues and requests our independent review of the 

record. We find no arguable issue and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by information with unlawful driving or taking 

of a vehicle with prior (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1) and receiving 

stolen property, motor vehicle with a prior (§ 496d, subd. (a); count 2). The 

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

information also alleged defendant had a prior conviction for receiving a 

stolen motor vehicle.

Defendant pleaded no contest to count 2 and admitted the prior. In 

accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to 

two years of formal probation and 33 days in jail.

Defendant failed to report to probation, and his probation was revoked. 

The court then reinstated probation and ordered defendant placed at Delancy 

Street Foundation (Delancy Street), a residential treatment program. 

Seven days after defendant was placed at Delancy Street, defendant 

left the program without authorization in violation of his probation. The 

court revoked probation and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant 

stated he did not want further treatment opportunities. 

Following a contested probation hearing, the court revoked defendant’s 

probation and sentenced defendant to a midterm of three years, with 565 

days of custody credit. While defendant asserted the court must impose the 

low term sentence due to mitigating circumstances, the court disagreed based 

on defendant’s criminal history. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. 

Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, which stated counsel 

had advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant 

has not submitted any pleading.

II. DISCUSSION

Neither appointed counsel nor defendant has identified any issue for 

our review. Upon our own independent review of the record, we agree none 

exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in revoking defendant's probation. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 

51 Cal.3d 437, 443.) A letter from Delancy Street and testimony from 

defendant’s probation officer established that defendant left his treatment 
3

program and failed to report to probation in violation of his probation terms. 

Moreover, the record reflects defendant’s request that he did not want to 

participate in alternative treatment programs after his probation was 

revoked. 

Likewise, we find no error in sentencing. The trial court properly 

considered mitigating and aggravating factors and concluded that the 

aggravating factors relating to defendant’s criminal record, including his 

performance on previous probation and his number of convictions and 

pending criminal matters, weighed in favor of imposition of the midterm. We

thus see no abuse of discretion regarding the sentence imposed. (People v. 

Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316.)

The record reflects that defendant was represented by counsel at all 

relevant times. Under these circumstances, we conclude the trial court’s 

decision to revoke probation and impose a midterm sentence based upon 

defendant’s repeated violations of its terms and conditions was proper. (See 

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 932 [“During the period of probation, 

the court may revoke, modify, or change its order suspending imposition or 

execution of the sentence, as warranted by the defendant’s conduct.”].) Thus, 

having ensured defendant has received adequate effective appellate review, 

we affirm the trial court’s judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 

117–119; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
4

MARGULIES, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BANKE, J.

GETTY, J.*

A167926

People v. Degorio

 Judge of the Solano County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.