Filed 4/24/18 P. v. Dimarino CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DAVID DIMARINO,
Defendant and Appellant.

A150592

(Solano County
Super. Ct. No. FCR317264)



This is the fourth in a series of recent appeals by David DiMarino. In each instance he was found to be in violation of parole by having contact with his girlfriend, M.F., after he had been forbidden to contact her as a condition of his parole. This time it was also alleged he violated a condition of parole by deleting the phone log history on his cell phone. He admitted both parole violations and was sentenced to 150 days in jail. He appealed under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442. We shall affirm.
The reason for the parole condition forbidding contact with M.F. was that DiMarino had been convicted in 2007 of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a 13-year-old minor in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), and M.F. also had two teenage daughters. His conditions of parole included that he not “date, socialize, or form a romantic interest or sexual relationship with any person who has physical custody of a minor.” The conditions were later amended to include a specific prohibition on having contact with M.F. or her immediate family. DiMarino was also subject to a parole condition prohibiting him from destroying records of a computer, deleting or removing browser history, and similar acts.
On December 15, 2016, a Solano County Sheriff’s deputy saw appellant in his car talking on his cell phone and possibly texting in front of a Winco supermarket in Vacaville. The deputy pulled DiMarino’s car over and checked his cell phone, but the contact history had been deleted. The deputy then contacted M.F., who told him she had been in contact with DiMarino and showed him romantic messages from DiMarino on her phone that she had received the same day.
On December 22, 2016, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed a Petition for Revocation of Parole, alleging DiMarino had violated his special conditions of parole by contacting M.F. on December 15, 2016. At a hearing on January 4, 2017, his attorney complained that he had been held in custody for 21 days before his first court appearance, but otherwise raised no legal arguments. The judge asked if she could cite a statute that would entitle him to release. She responded only that the delay in bringing him to court seemed unreasonable. The judge granted no relief for the allegedly unreasonable delay and preliminarily revoked DiMarino’s parole.
After admonishments, DiMarino then admitted both parole violations. The court ordered that he serve 150 days in jail. He filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have reviewed the entire record in this appeal and are satisfied there are no arguable issues to be briefed.
DISPOSITION
Affirmed.








_________________________
Streeter, Acting P.J.


We concur:


_________________________
Reardon, J.


_________________________
Schulman, J.*