Opinion
C097337
07-25-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TYLER VINCENT DECORTE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. P20CRF0634)
RENNER, J.
Appointed counsel for defendant Tyler Vincent Decorte 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
In November 2021, defendant pled no contest to one count of felony manufacturing a controlled substance, butane honey oil. (Health &Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a).) The trial court placed defendant on two years of formal probation.
In March 2022, the People filed a petition to revoke defendant's probation, but later dismissed this petition on their own motion.
In August 2022, the People filed a second petition for revocation of probation. After a contested hearing, the trial court found defendant violated probation because he was in possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia for injecting or smoking a controlled substance.
At sentencing, the trial court declined to reinstate probation, citing defendant's "history of noncompliance." After considering defendant's history of probation violations, history of drug-related conduct, failure to address his substance abuse issue, as well as the mitigating factor that defendant had a successful business, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of five years in county jail. Because defendant "ha[d] shown an absolute inability to comply with probation," and mandatory community supervision would have substantially the same terms and conditions as probation, the trial court found a split sentence was inappropriate in this case. The trial court further awarded 261 days of custody credit and imposed fines and fees.
Defendant timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (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 Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: EARL, P. J., HULL, J.