Filed 4/21/17 P. v. Salcida 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

JULIET SALCIDA,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067101

(Super.Ct.No. FSB1501530)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ronald M. Christianson, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Juliet Salcida appeals from the trial court’s finding she violated the terms of her mandatory supervision and sentencing her to two years in county jail. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2015, San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies were alerted by dispatch to a stolen Acura Integra. Shortly thereafter, deputies located the vehicle travelling on Baseline in Highland and pulled over the Acura Integra. The driver and sole occupant of the vehicle was defendant. The vehicle was found to have been started with a Ford car key that was jammed into the ignition with such force it could not be removed.
On May 7, 2015, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)).
On May 18, 2015, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to the charge. In return, defendant was granted formal probation for a period of 36 months on various terms and conditions, including serving 90 days in county jail and serving the balance on the weekend work-release program.
On July 27, 2015, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation for her failure to comply with her incarceration and work release.
On September 15, 2015, the trial court reinstated defendant’s probation and extended defendant’s probation to September 15, 2018.
Defendant’s probation was again revoked on October 1, 2015, after she failed to report to her probation officer as directed.
On May 19, 2016, defendant admitted that she violated her probation. In return, defendant was sentenced to a split two-year term with six months served in county jail and 18 months of mandatory supervision on various terms and conditions.
On September 2, 2016, a petition was filed to revoke defendant’s mandatory supervision. The petition alleged that defendant violated various terms of her mandatory supervision, including failing to report to probation following her release from county jail on July 3, 2016, using or possessing controlled substances, failing to cooperate with probation, failing to keep probation informed of her residence and cohabitants, associating with known felons, consuming alcohol, failing to cooperate with interrogation by a peace officer, and failing to carry a valid identification and a copy of the terms and conditions of her probation. The trial court thereafter revoked defendant’s mandatory supervision.
A hearing on the petition was held on October 21, 2016. At that time, defendant’s probation officer testified that on August 31, 2016, when other probation officers made a home visit on another probationer, defendant lied about her identity to the officers. Defendant eventually disclosed her identity. She was found to be under the influence of drugs and alcohol and was taken into custody. Defendant’s probation officer also stated that defendant was released from custody on July 3, 2016, and that defendant failed to report to probation immediately upon her release. The officer called defendant at the county jail on September 8, 2016. Defendant reported that she was sorry for lying to the officers who made contact with her on August 31. Defendant also apologized for not reporting to probation, and admitted to using alcohol and methamphetamine daily. She acknowledged that she lied to the officers about her name and identity.
Defendant testified that she was not informed about her probation terms and conditions and did not know she could not use alcohol or drugs or associate with other felons. She claimed that she did not report to probation because she was attempting to restore her supplemental security income (SSI) benefits which had been discontinued during her incarceration and she was dealing with three of her checks that had been fraudulently cashed while she was incarcerated. Defendant stated that she had never met her probation officer, but admitted to speaking with someone at probation and telling the person she was sorry for lying to the officers and failing to report to probation. Defendant also admitted to using alcohol daily while on mandatory supervision.
The trial court found that defendant violated the terms of her mandatory supervision. The court stated: “Court will find [defendant] in violation of mandatory supervision for not reporting as directed. The other violations were also substantiated based on the testimony, but that one was clear. That one was clear. There was one that she knew of and failed to follow. She’s had a previous violation for not reporting as directed. And at this point I’m in agreement with the probation recommendation as to the outcome of this proceeding.” Defendant was then sentenced to two years in county jail with 326 days’ credit for time served.
On October 25, 2016, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon her request, this court appointed counsel to represent her. 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. To aid our review, appellate counsel has summarily identified one possible appellate issue: whether there was sufficient evidence defendant failed to report as directed to probation after her release from jail on July 3, 2016.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and she 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:



RAMIREZ
P.J.



SLOUGH
J.