People v. Machuca

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO MANUEL MACHUCA…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Feb 3, 2017

E066610 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2017)

Opinion

E066610

02-03-2017

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO MANUEL MACHUCA, Defendant and Appellant.

Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

McKINSTER J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FVI1501621) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Eric M. Nakata, Judge. Affirmed. Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 7, 2016, defendant and appellant, Francisco Manuel Machuca, pled no contest to corporal injury to a cohabitant. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) The court granted defendant probation on various terms and conditions.

On April 7, 2016, defendant's probation officer filed a petition for revocation of probation. The probation officer alleged defendant had failed to comply with the terms of his probation by neglecting to report to probation as directed. On May 20, 2016, defendant admitted that he had violated a term of his probation. The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of three years' incarceration.

II. DISCUSSION

After defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant's motion for reduction of the court-ordered restitution fine.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

J. We concur: RAMIREZ

P. J. HOLLENHORST

J.