Opinion
D076155
06-22-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PETER DEVIN GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant.
Matthew R. Garcia, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SPV000462) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Monica Lepe-Negrete, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew R. Garcia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2014, Peter Devin Garcia was convicted of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69). In 2015, Garcia was convicted of sale of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike prior.
In December 2015, Garcia was sentenced to a determinate term of four years.
Garcia was later released and placed on post release supervision. The court imposed a protective order requiring Garcia to not contact Ms. J.
In June 2019, a petition was filed to revoke Garcia's supervised release. Following a contested evidentiary hearing, the court found Garcia had violated his supervised release by contacting Ms. J. Garcia was ordered to serve an additional 90 days in custody and was reinstated to supervised release.
Garcia filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Garcia the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A Brawley police officer responded to a domestic violence call to an apartment in that city. The officer encountered Garcia who was coming out of apartment 47 (where Ms. J. lived). The court had previously issued a protective order preventing Garcia from contacting Ms. J.
Garcia was taken into custody for violating the protective order.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues he considered when evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
1. Whether the protective order Garcia had agreed to accept was valid;
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding a violation of the order where Garcia said the victim had contacted him; and
3. Whether the court erred in granting the defense request for a continuance where Garcia objected to any continuance.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel represented Garcia on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order revoking and then reinstating Garcia on supervised release is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: AARON, J. GUERRERO, J.