Opinion
A147834
02-15-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARVAN HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 220329)
Defendant Arvan Hernandez appeals after the trial court revoked his probation and executed a previously imposed sentence. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has been apprised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
A jury convicted defendant of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664) and found true an allegation that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant admitted an allegation that he was previously convicted of a serious felony.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years for attempted robbery (§§ 213, subd. (b) & 18), an additional five years for the serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and concurrent terms of one year for a weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and one year for a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court suspended execution of sentence, placed defendant on probation for five years, and ordered him to report to the probation department, on the second floor of the Hall of Justice, by noon the following Monday.
Eleven months later, the probation department filed a motion to revoke defendant's probation, alleging he had never reported to the department. Defendant failed to appear in court, and the trial court administratively revoked his probation and issued a bench warrant. Defendant was arrested.
At a contested probation revocation hearing, the deputy probation officer who was assigned to defendant's case testified that defendant had never reported to the probation department. Defendant was homeless, and the probation officer had written to defendant at general delivery and had gone "out in the field" multiple times and looked for him. The trial court noted that it had specifically ordered defendant to go to the probation department no later than the Monday following the original sentencing hearing and had told him where the department was located. The court revoked defendant's probation, imposed the original sentence, and imposed fines and fees. At the request of appellate counsel, the trial court later reduced the amount of the restitution fine (§ 1202.4), parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), and probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44) to $280 each, the amount in effect in 2013, when defendant committed his crime.
There are no meritorious issues to be argued.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Schulman, J. We concur: /s/_________
Ruvolo, P.J. /s/_________
Reardon, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------