Filed 8/14/17 P. v. Gastelum CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MANUEL GASTELUM,

Defendant and Appellant.
D071802



(Super. Ct. No. SCD263445)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.
Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In November 2015, Manuel Gastelum pleaded guilty to one count of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The remaining allegations were dismissed. Gastelum was granted probation.
In May 2016, Gastelum's probation was summarily revoked. He thereafter admitted testing positive for alcohol and cocaine. Gastelum was reinstated on probation.
In February 2017, Gastelum again admitted violating probation. Probation was again revoked. The court declined to reinstate Gastelum on probation. He was sentenced to the midterm of four years for first degree burglary.
Gastelum filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Gastelum the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In July 2015 Gastelum unlawfully entered the residence of another without permission and with the intent to commit theft. His probation was revoked because he admitted violating probation by leaving the treatment program without permission.
DISCUSSION
As we have stated, appellate counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal and has asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. In order to assist this court in the review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Whether Gastelum was denied effective assistance of counsel regarding the consequences of his admission that he violated probation;
2. Whether the court erred in refusing to reinstate Gastelum on probation; and
3. Whether the court erred in selecting the middle term of four years.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Gastelum on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:




HALLER, J.




DATO, J.