Filed 4/2/18 P. v. Arreola CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JESUS MANUEL ARREOLA,

Defendant and Appellant.
2d Crim. No. B282896
(Super. Ct. No. 2016024135)
(Ventura County)

On September 13, 2016, Jesus Manuel Arreola pled guilty to unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) with a prior theft conviction (Pen. Code, § 666.5). The trial court granted Arreola’s request for probation on the conditions, among others, that he serve six months in a residential drug treatment program and obey all laws.
On February 28, 2017, the trial court found Arreola in violation of probation for resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148) and possession of a methamphetamine pipe (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). The court revoked his probation and sentenced Arreola to serve three years.
We appointed counsel to represent Arreola in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues.
On February 22, 2018, Arreola filed a supplemental brief. He appears to complain about sentencing in cases outside of this appeal. He complains that he was given more time than the original two-year offer. He rejected that offer. He complains that the trial court and prosecutor defamed him. He complains that the police gave him a concussion and dislocated his spine. He claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel did not introduce into evidence pictures of his injuries. He believes the pictures would show he acted in self-defense in resisting the police. But the resisting arrest charge is based on running from the police, not fighting them. He claims he has been denied Proposition 57 relief. But, even if he qualifies, nothing in the record shows he has been denied relief or that he has exhausted administrative remedies.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Arreola’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.



GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:


PERREN, J.


TANGEMAN, J.

Mark S. Borrell, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Christina Alvarez Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.