Opinion
E072019
09-06-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IVAN LUNA MEZA, Defendant and Appellant.
Ami Sheth Sagel, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 18CJ-002265) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Patrick L. Christianson, Temporary Judge. Affirmed. Ami Sheth Sagel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
In March 2018, defendant and appellant Ivan Luna Meza was released from state prison on various terms and conditions of CDCR/post release community supervision. Defendant subsequently violated the terms and conditions of his post release community supervision by failing to report to probation within two working days of his release. In October 2018, a petition to revoke defendant's post release community supervision was filed. After defendant admitted to violating the reporting condition, the trial court reinstated defendant on post release community supervision and sentenced him to 170 days in county jail with 13 days of credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant has a criminal history consisting of numerous drug- and theft-related convictions, as well as convictions for being an accessory and first degree burglary. Following his first degree burglary conviction, on October 13, 2015, defendant was sentenced to state prison for 24 months.
On March 1, 2018, defendant signed a form stating he understood his conditions of CDCR/post release community supervision. Defendant was released from state prison on March 30, 2018. Since his release, defendant failed to report to probation in violation of his post release community supervision conditions, term No. 3.
On September 11, 2018, defendant admitted to violating his community supervision. On that same day, the trial court reinstated defendant on community supervision and sentenced him to 60 days in county jail with two days credit for time served. Defendant was ordered to report to probation within 48 hours of his release from custody.
Defendant was released from custody on October 8, 2018. According to probation records, defendant failed to report as directed and his current whereabouts were unknown.
On October 18, 2018, the San Bernardino County Probation department filed a petition to revoke defendant's post release community supervision alleging that defendant violated term No. 3 of his community supervision conditions by failing to report to probation as directed.
On January 9, 2019, before a hearing officer, defendant admitted to violating his community release supervision by failing to report to probation as directed. The court thereafter reinstated defendant on community supervision and sentenced him to 170 days in county jail with 13 days of credit for time served.
On January 22, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, 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, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.