Filed 5/31/22 P. v. Pena CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jerry B. Marshak, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

On July 28, 2014, defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to eight months in prison. Following his service of custodial terms on additional convictions, defendant was released to postrelease community supervision on January 31, 2018.

On September 20, 2021, defendant admitted that he violated the terms of his postrelease community service by failing to report to the probation office as instructed. The trial court revoked defendant’s postrelease community supervision, and ordered him confined to the county jail for 58 days. The court credited defendant with 10 days of custody. Defendant appealed, asserting that his appeal was based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of the plea.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On March 22, 2022, counsel filed an opening brief in which counsel did not identify any arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedure set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. Appellate counsel represents to this court that defendant has been released, mooting any challenge he may have to the calculation of his custody credits, the sole basis for his appeal. (People v. Valencia (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 326, 329.)

On March 23, 2022, we notified defendant that appointed appellate counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and he had 30 days within which to independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted us to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that defendant’s appointed counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities in the instant appeal and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The order revoking defendant’s postrelease community supervision is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P.J.

MOOR, J.