Filed 1/22/20 P. v. Cuevas CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ISAIAS MICHAEL CUEVAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

F079627

(Super. Ct. No. R18900407-4)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Wayne R. Ellison, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Fresno Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)

Susan L. Jordan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Isaias Michael Cuevas asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On October 19, 2018, defendant was placed on postrelease community supervision (PRCS).

On June 19, 2019, defendant confronted his ex-wife and son at the door of a church. He yelled at his ex-wife and said she was stealing money from him. When she entered the church, he tried to follow, but witnesses prevented him from entering. Responding officers determined a criminal protective order prohibited defendant from contacting his ex-wife, and they arrested defendant. He was charged with violating a protective order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)).

On June 26, 2019, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of defendant’s PRCS. This was his fourth violation of PRCS.

On June 28, 2019, at the PRCS violation hearing, defendant admitted a misdemeanor violation of a protective order (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (c)(1)) in exchange for 180 days’ jail time and dismissal of the charge. As agreed, the trial court revoked his PRCS and reinstated PRCS under the same terms and conditions, with the addition of the jail time.

On July 12, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.