Filed 11/1/17 P. v. Ochoa CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIO ALBERTO OCHOA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073683

(Super. Ct. Nos. F11301264, F16902185)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James Kelley, Judge.
Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Mario Alberto Ochoa asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his 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. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In the first case (case No. F11301264), on November 5, 2013, defendant pled no contest to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); counts 1 & 3), in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
On January 14, 2014, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant five years of felony probation. The court awarded credits and imposed various fines and fees.
On January 9, 2015, the trial court found defendant in violation of probation. The court revoked probation, reinstated it under the same terms, and ordered that defendant serve 49 days in jail.
On May 19, 2015, defendant admitted violating probation by failing to drug test and testing positive for drugs. The trial court revoked probation, reinstated it under the same terms, and ordered that defendant serve 120 days in jail.
In the second case (case No. M15922159), on July 20, 2015, defendant pled no contest to possessing stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a), a misdemeanor), and the trial court imposed 180 days in jail. The court found that this offense violated the terms of defendant’s probation in the first case. The court revoked probation, reinstated it under the same terms, and ordered that defendant serve 180 days in jail concurrently to the 180 days imposed in the second case.
On September 23, 2015, defendant admitted violating probation in the first case by failing to drug test. The trial court revoked probation, reinstated it under the same terms, and ordered that defendant serve 365 days in jail.
In the third case (case No. F16902185), on April 19, 2016, defendant pled no contest to identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)). The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to 364 days in jail. The court determined that the offense in the third case violated the terms of defendant’s probation in the first case. The court revoked probation in the first case and imposed the middle term of two years on count 1 and a concurrent two-year term on count 3.
On May 3, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal in the first and third cases.
Our review of the entire record has revealed no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.