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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered 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 issues 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 arguable 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

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

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 felony 

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

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

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 state 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 revocation 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 convicted in a separate matter. Several months later, his 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 ability 
3

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 as 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 credit for a total of 

616 days. His one year sentence was thus deemed 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. 

DISCUSSION

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

on appeal.

DISPOSITION

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.