Filed 7/11/17 P. v. Hewitt CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LARRY DAVID HEWITT,

Defendant and Appellant. B279205

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 6PR03289)




APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cynthia Zuzga, Judge. Affirmed.
Julie Schumer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.



_____________________________

Defendant Larry David Hewitt appeals from an order revoking his post release community supervision (PCRS) status. We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and conclude that no arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm.
On June 24, 2016, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition to revoke defendant’s PCRS status, alleging he had failed to report to his probation officer on June 8, 2016 as instructed. Supervision was preliminarily revoked on June 29, 2016 and an arrest warrant was issued. Defendant was taken into custody, and denied the petition’s allegations. Following a formal revocation hearing on October 26, 2016 at which defendant’s probation officer testified, the trial court found the allegations to be true. The court revoked defendant’s PCRS status and ordered him confined in county jail for 180 days with 78 days of custody credit. The court also authorized defendant’s release to a program operated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant’s court-appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We have independently examined the entire record and conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110; Wende, at p. 443.)

DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.



EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:


WILLHITE, J.


MANELLA, J.