Filed 12/22/17 P. v. Salinas-Perez CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KEVIN SALINAS-PEREZ, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A151757

(Napa County
Super. Ct. No. CR182860)


After defendant pled no contest to false personation, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ formal probation, imposing various terms and conditions of probation. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On April 1, 2017, a Napa Sheriff’s Department officer initiated a traffic stop of a black Nissan Altima driven by defendant because the vehicle had a broken front windshield, and it did not stop at a stop sign. In addition to defendant, there were two other passengers, a male in the back seat and a female in the front passenger seat, both affiliated with the Norteño street gang. Both admitted to past involvement with the Norteño gang and each had gang tattoos.
When defendant identified himself, he gave the officer the name of his brother. Because the officer recognized defendant, he knew defendant had identified himself by a false name, but eventually defendant identified himself by his correct name.
Defendant was arrested for providing a false name and on a juvenile warrant. During the booking process, an officer located a plastic baggy containing methamphetamine weighing 1.8 grams in defendant’s pants pocket.
Defendant was charged in a complaint with false personation (Pen. Code, § 529; count one), bringing drugs into a jail (§ 4573; count two), and misdemeanor giving false information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a); count three).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant entered a no contest plea on count one. In view of the plea, the other counts were dismissed. The plea agreement provided defendant would be allowed to request that the felony false personation be reduced to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b).
At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the court imposed a suspended sentence and placed defendant on three years of formal probation with terms and conditions including, over defendant’s objection, a gang condition. The court also imposed a 90-day jail sentence with credit for time served of 77 days. When the court imposed the sentence, it denied defendant’s request to reduce the felony false personation to a misdemeanor, noting if defendant performed well on probation and “actually stays out of trouble for longer than a few weeks,” then the court “would be inclined to grant the 17(b) motion.”
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence and other matters occurring after the plea.
DISCUSSION
Counsel has filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case, but advising the court under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was notified by his counsel he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received.
Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have examined the entire record ourselves to see if any arguable issue is present. We have found none.
Defendant was ably represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and counsel vigorously argued to have defendant’s felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor, in addition to arguing against the imposition of the gang condition.
The trial court had ample reasons for denying defendant’s request to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor citing to his “hiding from probation,” being the occupant of a stolen vehicle, and having “two open misdemeanor cases.” Further, the court indicated it would be willing to reduce the felony conviction to a misdemeanor provided defendant performed well on probation. The court was also warranted in imposing a gang condition because of defendant’s association with the two passengers in the vehicle defendant was driving at the time of the traffic stop. These passengers were “known for past involvement with the Norteno street gang.”
We therefore agree with defendant’s counsel that no issues are present undermining defendant’s plea of no contest or the sentence.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
 




_________________________
Margulies, Acting P.J.


We concur:



_________________________
Dondero, J.


_________________________
Banke, J.



















A151757
People v. Salinas-Perez