Opinion
D076087
09-30-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEXANDER JACOME, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard Schwartzberg, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PLBD1845) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This is an appeal from a parole revocation. Alexander Jacome was convicted in 2017 of battery on a public transit employee (Pen. Code, § 243.3). He was sentenced to a two-year prison term. Jacome was paroled in August 2017.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
In June 2019, Jacome admitted a violation of the terms of his parole. He was sentenced to serve 90 days in custody.
Jacome 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 Jacome the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and he has responded with a supplemental brief. We will discuss that brief below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Apparently, there was no court reporter at the hearing. --------
Jacome was represented by counsel when he signed a one-page form in which he admitted he violated the terms of his parole.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following issue he considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the record supports a finding that Jacome made a knowing and intelligent admission to the petition alleging a violation of his parole.
Jacome has filed a supplemental brief raising six possible issues. All of the issues involve complaints about the parole officer's failure to include certain facts in the report, or trial counsel's alleged failure to take various steps. We are unable to evaluate his issues. The record does not contain a reporter's transcript, nor does it contain whatever documents Jacome feels were not properly prepared. There is simply nothing presented by Jacome's brief that relate to the record on appeal. Nothing in his brief presents any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. This appeal follows a waiver of evidentiary hearing and an admission of parole violation.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Jacome on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. DATO, J.