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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. A 167926

( 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 , sub d . ( a ) ; cou nt 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 pr ior . 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, and his probation was revoked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 he aring, 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 l eft his treatment3

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.

Lik ewise, 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 numbe r of convictions and

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

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

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

T he record reflects that defendant was represe nted 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. S egura (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 M ARGULIES
, A CTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

B ANKE
, J.

G ETTY
, J. *

A 167926 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.