P. v. Saechao CA3
mk's Membership Status
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09
Biographical Information
Contact Information
Submission History
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3
Find all listings submitted by mk
By mk
05:29:2017
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KAL SAECHAO,
Defendant and Appellant.
C082447
(Super. Ct. No. 16PA010080)
Appointed counsel for defendant Kal Saechao asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
In February 2013, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence resulting in great bodily injury or death. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to five years eight months in state prison and released on parole on March 25, 2015. As a special condition of his parole, defendant was to abstain from alcohol; he also was to enroll in and successfully complete a substance abuse treatment program. He acknowledged those conditions with his initials and signature.
On May 17, 2016, State of California parole agent Andre Robert Lovan visited defendant’s residence. He was greeted by defendant’s brother. Defendant’s brother had a bruise on his right eye. Agent Lovan noted the kitchen was in disarray; defendant told him he and his brother were wrestling.
Agent Lovan asked defendant if he had been drinking alcohol. Defendant admitted he drank a beer the day before with his neighbor. Agent Lovan arranged for defendant’s admission into a residential treatment program and transported him there; that same evening defendant left the program. Defendant later signed a statement of admission acknowledging he drank alcohol between May 16, 2016 and May 18, 2016.
On May 23, 2016, the Division of Adult Parole Operations filed a petition to revoke defendant’s parole. The division alleged defendant violated his parole by drinking alcohol, failing to complete a substance abuse treatment program, and by committing battery.
At the revocation hearing, the People dismissed the battery allegation. Defendant testified at that hearing and admitted to drinking beer “[o]nce in a blue moon.” He acknowledged that abstaining from alcohol was a condition of his parole, but said the occasional beer helped to calm his numerous psychiatric disorders including posttraumatic stress disorder. He explained that he left the residential treatment facility because he was uncomfortable there and he was told by the staff that his stay was voluntary.
The trial court found by a preponderance of evidence that defendant violated his parole by consuming alcohol and failing to complete a residential treatment program. The court then reinstated defendant’s parole, including all the original conditions of parole, and ordered him to serve 150 days in county jail. The court also awarded defendant 76 days of custody credit.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. To date, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/
BUTZ, J.
We concur:
/s/ ,
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.
/s/ ,
HOCH, J.
Description | Appointed counsel for defendant Kal Saechao asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124. In February 2013, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence resulting in great bodily injury or death. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to five years eight months in state prison and released on parole on March 25, 2015. As a special condition of his parole, defendant was to abstain from alcohol; he also was to enroll in and successfully complete a substance abuse treatment program. He acknowledged those conditions with his initials and signature. |
Rating | |
Views | 20 views. Averaging 20 views per day. |