Filed 3/4/21 P. v. Jacome CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Thi s opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALEXANDER JACOME

,

Defend ant and Appellant. D0 78140

(Super. Ct. No. PLBD1845 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

Robert Trentacosta, J udge. Affirmed.

Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appell ant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This appeal arises from the latest in a series of parole revocation

proceedings in the Superior Court. In the current proceeding, like the earlier

ones, appellant waived an evidentiary hearing and stipul ated to revocation,

reinstatement

, and a specific term of custody.2

In 2017

, Alexander Jacome was convicted of battery on a transit officer

(Pen

. Code

, 1 § 243.3) and received a two year prison sentence

. He was

paroled in August 2017. There have been mult iple revocation proceeding s in

the trial court. In each case

, Jacome waived evidentiary hearing. Jacome

appealed from the revocation proceeding in June 2019

, and this court

affirmed the order in an unpublished opinion

. ( People v

. Jacome ( Sept. 30,

2019

, D076087 ) [nonpub. opn.].)

In 2020

, another revocation petition was filed. The petition was

resolved by stipulation filed under section 977 (waiver of personal

appearance).

Jacome filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v

. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the

record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Jacome the oppor tunity

to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Jacome stipulate d he violate d the conditions of parole, waived

evidentiary hearing

, and agreed to a period of custody.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel h as filed a Wende brief and asks

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and

in compliance with Anders v

. California ( 1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), counsel

has identified the following possible issues which were consider ed in

evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

1. Whether the record supports a finding appellant made a knowing

and intelligent admission to the petition;

2. Whether counsel could enter an admission to the petition and waive

appellant ’ s presenc e by stipulation; and

3. Whether appellant ’ s admission of the parole violation was voluntary,

knowing and intelligent.

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal

. Competent counsel has represented Jacome on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order finding Jacome violated his parole and imposing additional

custody is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

O ’ ROURKE, J.