Filed 12/18/18 P. v. Pulido-Zaragoza CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IVAN PULIDO-ZARAGOZA, Defendant and Appellant.

A153838 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR326728)

Appellant Ivan Pulido-Zaragoza appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court revoked his probation. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.

On December 25, 2016, appellant broke into a commercial building, where police apprehended and arrested him. In February 2017, after a negotiated plea, appellant moved to withdraw his not guilty plea and pleaded no contest to one count of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). On March 9, 2017, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation.[1] The next day, appellant failed to report to the probation department as ordered, so his probation was summarily revoked and a bench warrant issued. Appellant absconded and was subsequently found and arrested.

The court conducted a contested probation revocation hearing. At the hearing, appellant’s supervising probation officer, Michelle Green, testified that appellant had not appeared at the probation department in March 2017. Based on this evidence, the court found that appellant had violated his probation. Subsequently, the court sentenced appellant to a two-year jail term on his underlying offense. This appeal followed.

We have reviewed the record and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that appellant violated the terms of his probation. We find no abuse of discretion in the sentence. Appellant stated he did not need any of the treatment services the probation department had to offer, and the probation department recommended imposition of sentence after concluding it was unlikely that appellant would participate in treatment or comply with supervision. The court imposed a midterm jail sentence after concluding that neither the mitigating nor aggravating circumstances relevant to the underlying offense substantially outweighed the other. As of March 9, 2017, appellant’s performance was unsuccessful with respect to three prior summary grants of probation. When appellant committed the underlying offense, he had been placed on probation just days before for a separate offense against the same victim. Appellant had multiple prior convictions, and his offenses were increasing in seriousness. On the other hand, the court considered appellant’s statement in mitigation and agreed the unsophisticated manner in which appellant committed the underlying crime was a mitigating factor. Appellant was also effectively represented by counsel.

We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

DISPOSTION

The judgment is affirmed.