Opinion
2d Crim. No. B302963
08-13-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVE MELO TEIXEIRA, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 18F-05928)
(San Luis Obispo County)
Appellant Steve Melo Teixeira pled no contest to receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court dismissed a second-degree burglary charge (§459) and a second receiving stolen property charge (§ 496, subd. (a).) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years of formal probation. The terms of probation include victim restitution.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In a prior appeal, we affirmed the victim restitution orders. (People v. Teixeira (June 24, 2020, B299152) [nonpub. opn.].) --------
In a subsequent case (No. 19F-02222-B), appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). He also was placed on probation for three years.
In the months after his first conviction, appellant was charged with, and admitted, three separate probation violations. The trial court reinstated his probation each time.
Thereafter, appellant was charged with another probation violation, i.e., failure to report to probation. Following a contested hearing, the trial court found appellant had committed the violation and imposed a two-year concurrent state prison sentence in each case with presentence credits of 476 days in the instant case (No. 18F-05928) and 325 in the other (No. 19F-02222-B). Appellant appeals the order revoking probation in the instant case.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting that the court make an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
We subsequently advised appellant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. The 30 days have since passed, and appellant has not presented any contentions or issues for our consideration.
Appellant did not report to the assigned probation department at any time during his probationary period in this case. His probation officer, Stacy Talbert, attempted to contact appellant by phone and at his last known address, but was unsuccessful.
Appellant admitted he had failed to report to probation. He claimed he was homeless, living in a riverbed, and was suffering from untreated mental health issues.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The probation revocation order in this case (No. 18F-05928) is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Jacqueline H. Duffy, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.