People v. Avina

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADRIAN E. AVINA, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

Date published: Dec 21, 2018

B290618 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018)

Opinion

B290618

12-21-2018

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADRIAN E. AVINA, Defendant and Appellant.

Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MOOR, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 8PH02668) APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert M. Kawahara, Commissioner. Affirmed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Adrian E. Avina was charged with violating the conditions of his parole. Following a contested hearing, the trial court found true the allegation that he possessed a knife with a blade longer than two inches. The trial court revoked and restored parole with the same conditions, with the modification that Avina was sentenced to 170 days in county jail with total credits of 82 days. Avina filed a timely notice of appeal.

We appointed counsel on appeal. On October 5, 2018, counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues but asking this court to independently review the record for error.

We advised Avina on October 5, 2018, of his right to file a brief or letter containing any issues he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and find no arguable issues on appeal. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

MOOR, J. We concur:

BAKER, Acting P.J.

JASKOL, J.^*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------