P. v. Covarrubias

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 11/15/13  P. v. Covarrubias CA4/3

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION THREE

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,         Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   SAMUEL LINO COVARRUBIAS,         Defendant and Appellant.

G048315            (Super. Ct. No. R-01338)            O P I N I O N

 

                        Appeal
from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Orange
County, Christopher J. Evans, Temporary Judge.  (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)  Affirmed.

                        Christopher
Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

                        No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

*               
*                *

                        Defendant Samuel
Covarrubias filed a notice of appeal
after the trial court found he violated his postrelease community supervision
(PRCS) and ordered him to serve 90 days in jail.  His appointed counsel filed a brief summarizing
the case, but advised this court he found no issues to support an appeal.  We gave appellant 30 days to file a written
brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded.  After conducting an independent review of the
record under href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

Facts

                        In July 2011, Covarrubias pleaded guilty to buying
or receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)) and received a
sentence of two years.  He was released
from prison on June 24, 2012
and placed on PRCS.  He was directed not
to violate any laws.

                        On March 27, 2013, a Santa Ana Police officer pulled
Covarrubias over for a traffic
violation and found 4.3 grams of methamphetamine in the car, and a glass pipe
in Covarrubias’s pants pocket.

                        The
next day, Covarrubias pleaded guilty to href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">possession of a controlled substance (Health
& Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and possession of controlled substance
paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1(a).)  The court placed him on probation for three
years and ordered him to complete a residential drug treatment program (Pen.
Code, § 1210).

                        On April 2, 2013, the Orange County Probation
Department filed a petition alleging Covarrubias
violated PRCS.  On April 12, 2013, the court held a hearing on the
petition and found him in violation.  The
court ordered him to serve 90 days in jail followed by a 90-day residential
program.

 

 

 

Potential Issues

                        Appellate
counsel identifies one potential issue for our consideration:  Did the court prejudicially err when it found
that appellant had violated his PRCS?

 

The Court Did Not Prejudicially
Err in Finding Covarrubias Violated His PostRelease Community Supervision

                        Covarrubias submitted on the
allegations of the petition and the trial court took judicial notice of his
March 2013 conviction.  Covarrubias violated
the law in March 2013 and was therefore in violation of PRCS.  (See Pen. Code, § 3453, subd. (b) [“person
shall obey all laws”].)  The court did not
prejudicially err in finding Covarrubias violated PRCS. 

name=I6A96C962026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A98EC40026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A96C963026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name="SP;3fed000053a85">name=I6A96C965026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A99D6A0026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A96C967026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A99FDB0026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A96C968026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A9A72E0026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A96F071026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A9AE810026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A9AE811026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A96F073026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A96F076026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A9BF980026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A9BF981026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>name=I6A96F078026A11DFAF28E3CB05C04070>                        We
discern no arguable issues from counsel’s brief or in our independent review of
the record. 

Disposition

                        The judgment is affirmed.


 

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                    ARONSON,
J.

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

MOORE, ACTING
P. J.

 

 

 

FYBEL, J.