Filed 5/11/16 P. v. Cifuentes CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

BYRON CIFUEN TES , Defendant and Appellant. B266508
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA079228 )

THE COURT: * Defendant and appellant Byron Cifuentes (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered upon termination of his probation and imposition of his previously suspended

sentence . His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), raising no issues. On February 8, 2016 , 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 judgmen t.

* BOREN, P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.2

On May 2, 2014, defendant was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement under
which he pled no contest to battery with injury on a peace officer (count 4) , in violation
of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (c)(2), 1 and to misdemeanor resisting, obstructi ng and delaying a peace officer or emergency medical technician (count 6) , in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1) . In addition, defendant admitted a prior prison term pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). Counsel stipulated to the factual basis as contained in the police report. In exchange for his plea, defendant would be given a suspended sentence of five years ( consisting of the high term of three years as to count 4,
a consecutive one

- year term as to count 6, and a one

- year consecutive term for the prison

prior enhancement ) and would be placed on formal probation for three years during
which time he was required to complete a one

- year drug treatment program, which would not count for custody credit.
The trial court sentenced defendant t o a five

- year term as agreed, suspended execution of sentence, placed defendant on three years of formal probation, and ordered
him to enroll in a one

- year residential drug treatment program within 30 days of his release from custody. Among other terms an d conditions of probation, the court ordered defendant to comply with all rules and regulations of the program, adding: “If you leave or you are discharged from the program for any reason prior to completion, you are
order ed to report to court on the next court date that is in session.” Defendant stated that
he understood.
Over the next six months, defendant entered and left three programs without completing them
, leading t he trial court to find defendant in violation of probation

. On May 21, 2015, the c ourt continued defendant on probation under the same terms and conditions, with the additional condition s that he complete two year s of residential

treatment at the Dream Center Discipleship program
, comply with all the program terms
and conditions , submit to drug testing , and waive all custody credit except 365 days

. The judge explained to defendant that his waiver meant that if he violated probation again,

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Co de, unless otherwise indicated.3

only 365 days of credit w ould be given . D efendant agreed to th ose terms. The court scheduled a pr ogress report for October 6, 2015. Less than two months later defendant left the Dream Center without completing the program, after the Center issued two community service penalties for failure to abide by the Center’s rules

. At the probation
revocation hearing d efendant testified that t he Dream Center had helped him , that he had
been sober for nine months before leaving, and sober ever since

. However, because one of the Center’s leaders “ pick [ ed ] on ” him, they disagreed about the rule violations, a nd

s i nce defendant did not want anymore confrontations
, h e left

. On August 25, 2015, t he trial court again f ound defendant in violation of his probation, which was terminated

. T he previously suspended sentence was imposed and
defendant was awarded a combined total of 148 days of custody credit

. 2 D e fe ndant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment

. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has complied with h is responsibilities and that no arguable issue ex ists. 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.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

2 Defendant applied to the superior court to correct the award to the agreed upon 365 days. The trial court found that defendant spent 322 actual days in custody, and corrected the order to reflect that amount, plus 322 days of conduct credit, for a total of 644 days of presentence custody credit.