Court Opinion

ID: 9548897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:10:22.352201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:44.012248
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/7/23 P. v. Vansteen CA3

                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                        (Shasta)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096924

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                    (Super. Ct. No. 17F3715)
           v.

 JOSHUA RAY VANSTEEN,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua Ray Vansteen filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) After reviewing the entire record, we will affirm the judgment.
         We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

                                                             1
                                   I. BACKGROUND
       The prosecution charged defendant with possession of a controlled substance for
sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), transportation of a controlled substance for sale
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), interception and use of police radio
communications (Pen. Code, § 636.5), and false evidence of vehicle registration (Veh.
Code, § 4462.5).
       Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5,
arguing evidence of the offenses was obtained in an illegal search of his vehicle. The
trial court denied the motion.
       Defendant pled no contest to the transportation of a controlled substance for sale
count. The prosecution dismissed the other counts and the parties stipulated to the factual
basis in the police report, which explained a police officer had pulled defendant over for
false registration. The officer used a narcotics detection dog, and the dog alerted to a
backpack containing an electronic safe. Inside the safe, the officer found a baggie with
17.3 grams of methamphetamine, a digital scale, and additional baggies. The officer also
found a police scanner, a counterfeit money scanner, another digital scale, and a large
amount of cash. As part of the plea agreement, defendant would be placed on formal
probation with 90 days in county jail.
       Defendant entered a Cruz1 waiver, then failed to appear for probation and for his
sentencing hearing. He stipulated to a violation of the waiver. On February 14, 2019, the
court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on a three-year term of
probation with 120 days in county jail. The court imposed various fines and fees detailed
in the written probation order.

1 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.

                                             2
       Defendant filed a notice of appeal and challenged the order denying the
suppression motion. This court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Vansteen (Feb. 18,
2020, C088939) [nonpub. opn.].)
       Defendant violated probation. On January 16, 2020, defendant admitted the
violation and the court revoked, then reinstated, probation with 90 days in county jail.
       Defendant violated probation again approximately four months later. At the
April 7, 2021, probation violation hearing, defendant admitted the violation and the court
again revoked, then reinstated, probation with 60 days in county jail. The parties also
discussed the term of probation under the newly effective Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-
2020 Reg. Sess.), which, among other things, limited the maximum term of probation for
felony offenses to two years. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2.) The court agreed with the
parties that because the term of probation would have been tolled for the current
probation violation, probation would end on October 26, 2021.
       On October 13, 2021, probation filed a petition alleging another probation
violation. The court held a contested probation violation hearing on July 28, 2022, and
sustained the allegation. Defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hold the
hearing, saying the probation term had expired. The court concluded the probation term
still had seven months remaining because the term had been tolled each time a probation
violation was pending.
       At the September 8, 2022, sentencing hearing, the court restated its conclusions as
to the remaining term, revoked and reinstated probation, and imposed a 90-day sentence
in county jail. Defendant filed a notice of appeal.
       One month later, the trial court noticed a hearing to recall and resentence
defendant under Penal Code section 1172.1. At the hearing, the court stated it had erred
in its sentencing decision. After reviewing the record, the court noted that at the April 7,
2021, hearing, it had changed the term to end on October 26, 2021, and calculated
defendant’s remaining probation term by tolling only the time pending for the most

                                             3
recent probation violation petition. At the most recent sentencing hearing, however, the
court had “reach[ed] back” and tolled the term for the earlier probation violation
petitions, as well, which the court determined was improper. Accordingly, the court
revoked and terminated probation, finding defendant was time served.
                                    II. DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether
there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days
from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and
defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to People v.
Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
                                   III. DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                         /S/

                                                 RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

EARL, P. J.

/S/

HULL, J.

                                             4