Filed 7/27/15 P. v. Winrow CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 The opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AARON DEMONE WINROW,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G051245

 (Super. Ct. Nos. 13WF0170 &

 13HF2107)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Terri K. 

Flynn-Peister, Judge. Affirmed. 

Amy Parekh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

* * *
2

The trial court found Aaron Demone Winrow violated the terms and 

conditions of his probation. The court lifted the stay on execution of a previously 

imposed five-year prison sentence. Winrow appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a 

brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

Counsel summarized the facts and procedural history of the case, and cited possible legal 

arguments, but raised no specific issues, and asked this court to review the record to 

determine whether there were any arguable matters. Counsel submitted a declaration 

stating she thoroughly reviewed the record. Counsel advised Winrow she would file a

Wende brief, and provided him with a copy. She advised Winrow he could personally 

file a supplemental brief on his own behalf raising any issues he believed worthy of 

consideration, and stated she was making a copy of the record available to him. Counsel 

did not argue against her client or declare the appeal was frivolous. She advised Winrow

he could ask the court to relieve her as counsel. We gave Winrow 30 days to file a 

supplemental brief, but he has not responded. We have reviewed the record, found no 

arguable issues, and therefore affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Orange County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint (case No. 

13WF0170) in January 2013, later amended in March 2013, alleging Winrow committed 

first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5) on January 20, 2012, and extortion by 

force or threat (Pen. Code, §§ 518, 520) on November 23, 2012. It also alleged he 

possessed methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and hydrocodone 

(Health & Saf. Code, § 11350), received stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), 

and possessed a fictitious instrument (Pen. Code, § 476) on January 11, 2013.~(ct2)~ The 

complaint further alleged Winrow had previously served a prison term (Pen. Code, 

§ 667.5, subd. (b)) after suffering a conviction for forgery (Pen. Code, § 470) in March

2008.
3

A second complaint (case No. 13HF2107) filed in July 2013, alleged 

Winrow committed unlawful vehicle taking (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), second 

degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)), forgery (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. 

(d)), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), 

possession of a fictitious instrument (§ 476), and false representation to a police officer

(Pen. Code, § 149.9, subd. (b)) on June 28, 2013. It also alleged he committed the 

vehicle taking offense while on bail for other offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b)), 

and alleged he previously served a prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) after 

suffering a conviction for forgery (Pen. Code, § 470) in March 2008. 

In December 2013, Winrow waived his constitutional rights and pleaded 

guilty to all the offenses, and admitted the enhancements in both cases. The court 

imposed and suspended execution of a five-year prison sentence comprised of the fouryear midterm for first degree robbery, plus one year for the prior conviction enhancement 

in case 13WF0170. The court imposed concurrent terms, or stayed (Pen. Code, § 654) or 

struck terms for the other offenses, and enhancements in both cases.

In May 2014, the Orange County Probation Department filed a petition 

alleging Winrow violated the terms of his probation. The petition alleged Costa Mesa 

police arrested Winrow on May 23, 2014, for possessing a controlled substance (Pen. 

Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), falsely identifying himself to a police officer (Pen. Code, 

§ 148.9, subd. (a)), violating a domestic violence restraining order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, 

subd. (a)), and false impersonation (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. (a)). It also alleged he 

associated with another probationer, failed to report to his probation officer, and failed to 

enroll in the Delancey Street drug program.

The court conducted a hearing on the violation petition on December 29, 

2014. The prosecutor elected to proceed solely on a “violate no law” condition of 

Winrow’s probation. Costa Mesa Police Officer Jose Torres testified that on May 23, 

2014, he encountered Winrow in the driver’s seat of a legally parked BMW sports car 
4

with a female passenger. Another officer, in a separate police vehicle, was already on the 

scene talking to the passenger. Torres gestured for Winrow to roll down the window, and 

the officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car. Winrow admitted 

they had been smoking marijuana, but did not reply when asked if there was additional 

marijuana in the vehicle. Torres asked Winrow to step out of the vehicle. He handcuffed 

Winrow for safety reasons because Winrow was much taller than the officer, and Torres

conducted a patdown search. He felt a baggie in Winrow’s left rear pants pocket. 

Winrow admitted it was additional marijuana.

The baggie found on Winrow contained a white crystalline substance, 

which Torres opined was a usable quantity of methamphetamine. A forensic scientist 

with the Orange County crime lab testified the baggie contained 175 milligrams of 

substance containing methamphetamine. 

The court found Winrow violated his probation by possessing 

methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). At sentencing, Winrow told 

the court he had been “turned [] away” from Delancey Street “due to a medical 

condition” and he “fell back to [his] old habits.” He asked for another chance to remedy 

his addiction. The court revoked probation based on Winrow’s willful violation of 

probation and lifted the suspension of the sentences. The court awarded him custody and 

conduct credits totaling 531 days.

DISCUSSION

Following Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

appellate record and discern no arguable issue. This includes counsel’s suggestion we 

consider whether Winrow’s statements to Officer Torres violated Miranda v. Arizona

(1966) 384 U.S. 436, whether the search violated Winrow’s rights under the Fourth 

Amendment, and whether the court correctly admitted Officer Torres’s testimony 

concerning the case number over foundational and hearsay objections, and whether the 

court correctly admitted the forensic scientist’s testimony concerning his testing of the 
5

methamphetamine. Winrow has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 111 [appellate court must 

address issues raised personally by appellant in a Wende proceeding]), nor has he 

requested to have appellate counsel relieved. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. 

(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.) 

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

ARONSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.