Opinion
E069365
03-27-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SIMON RAYMOND FLORES, Defendant and Appellant.
Sylvia W. Beckham, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.Nos. FSB 1202348 & 17PA001430) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. James Robert Gericke, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Sylvia W. Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Simon Raymond Flores appeals from the judgment revoking and reinstating his parole. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 18, 2012, defendant pled guilty to active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to 16 months in state prison.
On September 19, 2017, the People filed a petition to revoke defendant's parole, based on his failure to register with his parole agent and drug possession. On that date, the court found probable cause, preliminarily revoked defendant's parole, and appointed counsel.
On September 20, 2017, defendant accepted the People's offer of 170 days in county prison in exchange for admitting the parole violations. The court reinstated defendant's parole.
This appeal followed.
On January 24, 2018, the trial court denied defendant's ex parte application for correction of presentence custody credit.
DISCUSSION
At defendant's request, this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, 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 and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: McKINSTER
J. FIELDS
J.