Filed 9/9/15 P. v. Coreas CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAVIER ANTONIO COREAS,

Defendant and Appellant. H040700

(Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. F1347097)

Defendant Javier Antonio Coreas pleaded no contest to one count of felony grand

theft from the person (Pen. Code, § 487 , subd. (c) )

. 1 On appeal, his counsel has filed an

opening brief in which no i ssues are raised and asks this court for an independent review

of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has

declared defendant was notified that an independent review under Wende was being

requested. We advised defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own

behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have received no written

argument from defendant.

Pursuant to Wende , we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that

there are no arguab le issues. We will provide “a brief description of the facts and

procedural history of the case, the crimes of which defendant was convicted, and the

punishment imposed.” ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND

On June 11, 2013, defendant was charged by complaint with one count of second

degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c) ) for taking batteries and an A/C charger from a

Staples store.

On November 22, 2013, the complaint was amended to add a count of felon y

grand theft from the person (§ 487, subd. (c) ). Thereafter, defendant entered a n egotiated

plea of no contest to the felony grand theft charge with the understanding that he wou ld

be placed on probation. The plea included a modifiable term of one year in county jail.

Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and waived referral for a full

probation report. Accordingly, the record contains little information regarding the

circumstances of his offense. However, the probation report does sta te that defendant

stole a battery charger valued at $16.50 from a Staples store. The battery charger was

recovered at the scene.

On December 16, 2013, the court placed defendant on three years’ probation

,

subject to various terms and conditions including a year of county jail

. The court

awarded him custody credits of 193 actual days and 192 days conduct credit, for a total of

385 days. The court imposed a restitution fine of $280 under section 1202.4 and imposed

and suspended a matching $280 probation r evocation restitution fine under section

1202.44. His jail sentence was deemed served. On February 10, 2014, defendant filed a

timely notice of appeal.

On February 27, 2014, the court revoked defendant’s probation after he was

charged and c onvicted in a separate matter. Several months later, hi s probation was

reinstated.

On November 6, 2014, the court modified two of defendant’s probation conditions

to include an express knowledge requirement. The parties also stipulated that defendant

was unable to pay probation supervision fees under section 1203.1b and lacked the ability3

to pay or perform public service work. The probation supervision fees were reduced to

an amount not to exceed $10 a month.

On January 21, 2015, the court reduced defendant’ s felony conviction of grand

theft from the person to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47. The court also reduced the

restitution fine to $100 and deleted the suspended restitution fine that was previously

imposed

. The probation supervision fees remained a s previously ordered. The court

sentenced defendant to a term of one year in county jail for the probation violation and

granted him custody credits of 308 actual days and 308 days conduct credi t for a total of

616 days. His one year s entence was thus de emed served. The court then applied the

remainder of his credits to his outstanding fines at a rate of $30 a day and deemed his

outstanding fines paid. (§ 2900.5, subd. (a).) Victim restitution remained in effect and

could be collected civilly.

D ISCUSS ION

We have examined the entire record and conclude that there are no arguable issues

on appeal.

D ISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.Walsh, J. *

WE CONCUR:

Rushing, P.J.

Elia, J.

People v. Coreas

H040700

* Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.