Filed 4/20/18 P. v. Pacheco 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

ALPHONSO PACHECO,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068817

(Super.Ct.No. 16CR022488)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shahla Sabet, Judge. Affirmed.
Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Alphonso Pacheco failed to keep his probation officer informed of his place of residence and failed to report to probation as directed for approximately four months in 2017. As a result, his mandatory supervision was terminated and his previously suspended three-year sentence was imposed. Defendant appeals from the trial court’s finding he violated the terms of his mandatory supervision and the court’s order terminating his supervision. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 25, 2016, defendant committed vandalism causing over $400 in damages.
On June 15, 2016, an information was filed charging defendant with felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that defendant had suffered three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d)).
On August 12, 2016, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to felony vandalism. In return, defendant was promised that the remaining enhancement allegations would be dismissed and defendant would be sentenced to a split three-year term with one year served in county jail and two years of mandatory supervision on various terms and conditions. At the time defendant pled no contest, the trial court went over the terms and conditions of defendant’s mandatory supervision and defendant acknowledged those terms and conditions would be imposed at the sentencing hearing.
Defendant’s sentencing hearing was held on November 10, 2016. At that time, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement. During the hearing, defendant acknowledged that he had a copy of his terms and conditions of mandatory supervision and that he had reviewed those terms and conditions. Defendant also indicated that he understood and agreed to all of the terms and conditions of his mandatory supervision. In addition, the trial court explained to defendant that if he violated the terms of his supervision, he could be in violation of his mandatory supervision. The court explained that defendant was required to report to probation upon his release and that defendant had an obligation to report to probation. Defendant stated that he understood his supervisory conditions.
On February 23, 2017, a petition was filed to revoke defendant’s mandatory supervision. The petition alleged that defendant violated term No. 008A of his mandatory supervision. Specifically, this term required defendant to “Keep the Probation Officer informed of [his] place of residence and cohabitants; give written notice to the Probation Officer twenty-four (24) hours prior to any changes. Prior to any move provide written authorization to the Post Office to forward mail to the new address.” On that same day, the trial court revoked defendant’s mandatory supervision and issued a bench warrant for defendant’s arrest.
Defendant was eventually arrested on May 2, 2017. On May 3, 2017, defendant denied violating the terms of his mandatory supervision, and the trial court set a formal revocation hearing.
The formal hearing on the petition was held on June 16, 2017. At that time, San Bernardino County Probation Officer Antonio Velasquez testified that upon defendant’s release from custody, defendant reported to the probation office for an orientation and assessment where his terms and conditions were reviewed. Defendant signed that he understood his terms. Defendant was given specific reporting instructions to report weekly since he was homeless and informed that if he moved in with someone, he was to provide a notice of change of address. The last time defendant reported to probation was on December 21, 2016. A probation officer went to defendant’s last known address and made contact with defendant’s brother-in-law. Defendant’s brother-in-law reported that defendant was no longer residing at his address because defendant returned to his substance abuse. Defendant did not have contact with his probation officer or the probation department between December 21, 2016 and May 2017. Based on defendant’s lengthy criminal history and defendant’s history of violating parole numerous times in his prior cases, Probation Officer Velasquez recommended defendant’s mandatory supervision be revoked and that defendant serve the balance of his suspended sentence.
The trial court found that defendant violated the terms of his mandatory supervision. The court stated that defendant “ha[d] not reported his place of residence or kept probation informed of his place of residence.” The court thereafter terminated defendant’s mandatory supervision and sentenced defendant to the balance of the three-year term previously imposed and suspended under a split sentence. Defendant was awarded 556 days of credit for time served.
On July 27, 2017, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, defense 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. To aid our review, appellate counsel has summarily identified two possible appellate issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to show a violation of defendant’s terms and conditions of mandatory supervision; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking and terminating defendant’s mandatory supervision.
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
Acting P. J.
We concur:



SLOUGH
J.



FIELDS
J.