Filed 7/17/17 P. v. Nguyen CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERIK TUAN NGUYEN,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067415

(Super.Ct.No. FWV1301532)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Jon D. Ferguson, Judge. Affirmed.
Ami Sheth Sagel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
In 2013, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant Erik Tuan Nguyen pled no contest to one count of felony theft of access card account information (Pen. Code, § 484e, subd. (d)). Defendant also admitted that he had suffered two prior prison terms (§§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was sentenced to a split term of two years in county jail and three years on mandatory supervision on various terms and conditions.
Subsequently, defendant violated the terms and conditions of his mandatory supervision. In 2016, after defendant admitted to violating his mandatory supervision by violating the law, the trial court reinstated and modified defendant’s mandatory supervision and ordered defendant to serve five years in county jail with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2013, one of defendant’s female companions attempted to purchase $4,983.98 worth of electronics from a store in Rancho Cucamonga with a fraudulent credit card. When loss prevention agents attempted to contact the female, she refused to stop and tried to get into a black Lexus driven by defendant. The vehicle left the parking lot without the female suspect and she was later detained. Defendant and a female passenger were taken into custody. Defendant was serving a county prison sentence at the time and wore an ankle monitor. During the search of the vehicle, officers found stolen identity information. A search of defendant’s person revealed two fraudulent credit cards.
On May 6, 2013, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with one count of second degree commercial burglary (§ 459; count 1); one count of theft of access card account information (§ 484e, subd. (d); count 5); and one count of conspiracy to commit identity theft (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count 6). The complaint further alleged that defendant had suffered four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On September 12, 2013, defendant pled no contest to count 5, and admitted he had suffered two prior prison terms in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining allegations and a stipulated split term of two years in county jail and three years on mandatory supervision. After directly examining defendant, the trial court found that defendant read and understood his plea form and that defendant understood the charges and consequences of his guilty plea and admissions. The trial court also found that defendant knowingly, intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and that defendant knowingly, intelligently, freely, and voluntarily pled no contest and admitted the priors. The trial court further found that there was a factual basis for defendant’s plea and admissions.
On October 10, 2013, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement to a split term of two years in county jail and three years on mandatory supervision on various terms and conditions. Defendant was awarded 178 days of credit for time served, and the remaining charges were dismissed.
On April 18, 2014, a petition to revoke defendant’s mandatory supervision was filed. The petition alleged that defendant violated seven of his mandatory supervisory terms by: (1) violating the law; (2) possessing a loaded firearm; (3) possessing 30 grams of marijuana; (4) possessing a glass methamphetamine pipe; (5) associating with known convicted felons; (6) possessing blank checks not in defendant’s name or possessing checks without his probation officer’s permission; and (7) possessing credit cards without his probation officer’s permission. At the time the petition to revoke mandatory supervision was filed, defendant was in custody in Los Angeles County.
On August 4, 2015, defendant admitted to violating all of the allegations of his mandatory supervision as alleged in the petition to revoke. The trial court thereafter reinstated defendant on mandatory supervision with modified terms and ordered defendant to serve 1,234 days in county jail.
On September 11, 2015, while defendant was on mandatory supervision in the instant case, defendant was convicted in Los Angeles County of forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), possession of an official seal (§ 472), using identifying information of another with an intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)), and knowingly using identifying information of another with an intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (d)(2)), and sentenced to two years in county jail.
On January 22, 2016, another petition to revoke defendant’s mandatory supervision was filed. The petition alleged that defendant had violated the law based on his convictions in Los Angeles County.
On December 12, 2016, after the trial court explained to defendant his constitutional rights and after defendant indicated he understood his constitutional rights and wanted to waive those rights, defendant admitted to violating his mandatory supervision by committing a new offense. Immediately thereafter, the trial court reinstated and modified defendant’s mandatory supervision and ordered defendant to serve five years in county jail with a credit of 719 days for time served.
On December 16, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. On that same day, defendant also filed a handwritten letter indicating that his attorney coerced him into the plea, his counsel failed to advise him of his rights to a hearing, and his plea was not voluntary.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:

MILLER
Acting P. J.

FIELDS
J.