Opinion
F076614
10-31-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE LUIS MEDINA, Defendant and Appellant.
Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or reiving on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. MCR052608, MCR051492)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ernest J. LiCalsi, Judge. Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Jose Luis Medina admitted violating his probation in Madera County Superior Court case Nos. MCR051492 (case 1) and MCR052608 (case 2) and was sentenced to a local term. Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2015, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Medina argued with his girlfriend over the location of a chair at their residence. The argument escalated and Medina slapped his girlfriend on the face several times. The girlfriend fell to the floor and Medina continued hitting her until she was able to escape to a neighbor's residence (case 1).
On April 21, 2015, in case 1, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Medina with domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a) ).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
On April 27, 2015, the prosecutor amended the complaint to add count 2, which charged Medina with misdemeanor domestic battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)), and Medina pled guilty to that count. The court then placed Medina on probation and ordered him to serve 32 days in custody with credit for time served.
On November 4, 2015, at approximately 9:20 a.m., a Madera police officer found Medina sitting in a car that had been stolen approximately two hours earlier. During a probation search of Medina's residence, officers found numerous tools and equipment that had been stolen simultaneously with the car (case 2).
On November 6, 2015, in case 2, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Medina with burglary (§ 459/count 1) and grand theft auto (Veh. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1)/count 2), receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)/count 3), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)/count 4).
On November 20, 2015, Medina pled guilty to receiving stolen property in case 2, and admitted violating his probation in case 1. As part of Medina's plea agreement in case 2, his receiving stolen property conviction would not be eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47, the remaining counts in that case would be dismissed, and he would receive an initial grant of probation conditioned on Medina serving 60 days in custody. His agreement in case 1 provided that in exchange for his admission that he violated his probation in case 1, Medina would have his probation reinstated and he would be required to serve 60 days, concurrent to the time he was required to serve in case 2.
On December 22, 2015, in case 2, the court placed Medina on felony probation for three years conditioned on him serving 60 days in custody. In case 1, the court revoked and reinstated probation on condition that he serve 60 days in custody concurrent to the time he received in case 2.
On June 8, 2016, Medina admitted violating his probation in both cases. After Medina waived time for sentencing, in each case the court revoked and reinstated probation. In case 1, the court ordered Medina to serve 100 days in custody with credit for seven days served. In case 2, the court ordered him to serve seven days in custody with credit for seven days served.
On August 24, 2016, Medina admitted violating his probation in both cases and his probation in both cases was revoked and reinstated and he was ordered to serve two concurrent 90-day terms.
On January 13, 2017, Medina admitted violating his probation in both cases and in each case the court continued him on probation. The court also ordered Medina to serve 120 days in case 2.
On April 20, 2017, in each case the probation department filed a petition for revocation of probation alleging Medina violated his probation by failing to appear for a felony drug court review hearing, report weekly to the probation officer, and report for a scheduled appointment with his probation officer. Additionally, the court revoked Medina's probation in both cases.
On September 22, 2017, in both cases Medina admitted violating his probation as alleged in the petition.
On October 23, 2017, the court did not reinstate probation. Instead, in case 1, the court sentenced Medina to 364 days in local custody with credit for 364 days served. In case 2, the court sentenced Medina to an aggravated three-year local term and awarded him 400 days of presentence custody credit.
On November 17, 2017, Medina filed a timely appeal in both cases.
Medina's appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Medina has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.