Filed 11/28/18 P. v. Julian CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAIME MUNDO JULIAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
| B290500
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA302360)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 7, 2018, be modified as follows:
1. At the bottom of page 1, in the first paragraph, the sentence that reads, “That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter,” is deleted.
2. On page 2, between the second full paragraph which ends with “or to explore domestic violence classes,” and the next paragraph beginning with “We have examined,” the following paragraph is inserted:
In his own letter to the court, defendant states that when immigration officials took him into custody upon his release from jail, they told him to have a family member notify his probation officer. He then caused the mother of his children to report to the probation department. When she informed them of defendant’s deportation, she was told that Probation knew of defendant’s case and everything was okay. Defendant also states that he did not understand English, and his counsel did not adequately explain the prison or immigration consequences of his plea. It appears defendant is now complaining about the effectiveness of counsel. As the record fails to show that counsel knew of a potential defense to the probation violation or did not adequately advise defendant, this claim is not cognizable on appeal, but is more appropriately made in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.)
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
_______________________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.
Filed 11/7/18 P. v. Julian CA2/2 (unmodified opinion)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 TWO
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAIME MUNDO JULIAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
| B290500
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA302360) |
THE COURT:
Defendant Jaime Mundo Julian appeals from the judgment entered after the Superior Court terminated his probation and ordered the execution of the previously suspended prison sentence. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On September 5, 2018, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
In 2006, defendant was convicted following a plea of guilty, of four felony counts and sentenced to eight years eight months in prison. Execution of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on formal probation for five years under specified conditions, including custody in county jail. Defendant was deported upon his release from jail, and failed to contact the probation department. In 2016, defendant was arrested, found to be in violation of probation due to his failure to comply with several conditions of probation. In addition, the court found a violation based upon offenses which occurred after the expiration of the five-year probationary period. The court revoked probation and ordered execution of the suspended sentence of eight years eight months in prison. After defendant appealed from the judgment, the matter was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court to exercise discretion to terminate probation based solely upon events that occurred before the expiration of the probationary period, or to reinstate probation. (People v. Julian (Nov. 22, 2017, B280043) [nonpub. opn.].)
On remand, the trial court again terminated probation and ordered the execution of the previously suspended sentence of eight years eight months in prison, based on defendant’s failure to make any contact with the probation department; to provide probation with his contact information; to begin meeting his financial obligations; or to explore domestic violence classes.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)
The judgment is affirmed.
____________________________________________________________
LUI, P.J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.
