Filed 1/30/18 P. v. Gutierrez CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sutter)

----

Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony James Gutierrez has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

I

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

On June 29, 2015, defendant, having been charged with commission of a felony and released from custody on his own recognizance, willfully failed to appear in court in order to evade the process of the court.

Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with willful failure to appear after being released on his own recognizance. (Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b).)[1] The complaint alleged that, at the time of the commission of the offense, defendant was released from custody on bail or his own recognizance on a prior felony offense for which judgment had not yet become final. (§ 12022.1.)

On September 4, 2015, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to violation of section 1320, subdivision (b). The trial court dismissed the section 12022.1 enhancement on the People’s motion and referred the matter to probation.

On November 23, 2015, the trial court denied probation and imposed a sentence of three years, split pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h) to comprise 120 days in county jail, minus 120 days of credit for time served, with the remaining two years eight months suspended and served on mandatory supervision subject to all standard terms and conditions. The court imposed fees and fines, including a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 mandatory supervision revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of mandatory supervision (§ 1202.45, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $30 probation supervision fee (§ 1203.1b).

On February 29, 2016, the People filed a petition for revocation of mandatory supervision alleging defendant failed to report to probation as directed on four separate occasions. Following a hearing, the trial court found the allegations not true and reinstated defendant on mandatory supervision.

On September 14, 2016, the People filed a second petition for revocation of mandatory supervision alleging defendant failed to report to probation as directed on three separate occasions, failed to keep his probation officer advised of his residence, and failed to submit for chemical testing on two separate occasions. Defendant admitted all allegations in the petition.

On January 17, 2017, the trial court terminated mandatory supervision, ordered defendant to serve the balance of the previously suspended two-year eight-month sentence in county jail, and awarded defendant 454 days of presentence custody credit.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

II

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/

Blease, J.

We concur:

/s/

Raye, P. J.

/s/

Murray, J.