Filed 6/1/17 P. v. Giles CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHELTON GILES,

Defendant and Appellant.
D070981



(Super. Ct. No. SCD252712)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.
Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2014, Shelton Giles pleaded guilty to burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). He was granted probation on various terms and conditions.
Following the grant of probation, there were four violations between 2014 and 2016. In each instance Giles was reinstated to probation. At the completion of the fifth violation hearing on January 21, 2016, the court sentenced Giles to the upper term of three years. The court suspended the execution of sentence and again reinstated Giles on probation.
After yet another violation of probation established at an evidentiary hearing, probation was again revoked and the court declined to reinstate probation. The stayed three-year term was then executed. Giles filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Giles the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The underlying offense involved the burglary of an I Squad Repair kiosk. Giles took two iPads and four iPhones with a total value of $1,800.
In his sixth probation violation proceeding the trial court found Giles had failed to maintain contact with his probation officer and that he failed to remain in the residential treatment center as ordered by the probation officer.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has been unable to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. In order to assist this court in the review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the upper term for burglary following the January 2016 revocation of probation.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal following the selection of the stayed upper term sentence.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Giles on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:




HALLER, J.




O'ROURKE, J.