Opinion
E066958
01-13-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID MITCHELL ARIOLA, Defendant and Appellant.
David Mitchell Ariola, in pro. per.; and Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. BPR1601554) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith Fouladi, Judge. Affirmed. David Mitchell Ariola, in pro. per.; and Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1989, defendant and appellant David Mitchell Ariola was convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a); and in 2010, defendant was convicted for possession of child pornography under Penal Code section 311.11, subdivision (b). On August 9, 2015, defendant was released to parole supervision with conditions, for a maximum of three years or until discharged.
On September 7, 2016, the People filed a petition for revocation of parole alleging that defendant violated the conditions of his parole by being present in a prohibited area (violation 1), having access to the internet (violation 2), accessing websites that permit the user to navigate the internet undetected (violation 3), accessing pornographic material (violation 4), and entering within 250 feet of the perimeter of a place where children congregate (violation 5).
On September 15, 2016, defendant admitted the first four violations—being present in a prohibited area, accessing the internet, accessing the internet undetected, and viewing pornography. Defendant waived time for sentencing and was immediately committed for 180 days in county jail. Upon his release from custody, parole supervision was to be reinstated on the same terms and conditions.
On September 30, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. On December 30, 2016, defendant filed a 10-page handwritten supplemental brief. In his brief, defendant does not challenge his admission of the four parole violations, or the court's order committing him to custody for 180 days and reinstating parole on the same terms and conditions upon his release from custody. Instead, defendant challenges the conditions of his parole that he agreed to on April 4, 2016, after he was released to parole supervision on August 9, 2015. Specifically, he challenges condition Nos. 5, 15, 21, 24 through 27, 33, 43, 46 through 48, 50, 53, 55, 67, 80, 86 through 90, 93, 94, 99, and 103 through 107.
Defendant, however, cannot challenge the conditions of his parole on this appeal. First, this appeal is an appeal from the court's order on September 15, 2016, sentencing defendant to jail for 180 days and then reinstating him on parole after his release, after defendant admitted violating four conditions of his parole. This appeal does not encompass a challenge to defendant's parole conditions. Moreover, immediately above defendant's signature in the conditions of parole that he challenges, it states: "THIS DOCUMENT SERVES AS YOUR NOTICE AND CONDITIONS OF PAROLE. You have the right to appeal the special conditions of your parole. Special conditions imposed by the Division of Adult Parole Operations may be appealed pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, Sections 3084-3085." Therefore, defendant must appeal the conditions of his parole under the California Code of Regulations. In his supplemental brief, defendant even states: "I have been informed by my Attorney that the results that I want (a narrowing of my conditions of parole) can not [sic] be raised by him because I must exhaust administrative remedies and the issues are not raised in the court transcripts."
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
Acting P. J. We concur: CODRINGTON
J. SLOUGH
J.