Filed 2/19/21 P. v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

RODOLFO McCLELLAN SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D077454

 (Super. Ct. No. JCF38446)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, 

Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. 

Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

In October 2017, Rodolfo Sanchez pleaded guilty to injuring his 

girlfriend (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5). The court suspended the imposition of 

sentence and placed Sanchez on probation on various terms and conditions. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

In March 2018, Sanchez admitted violating his probation; the court 

revoked and then reinstated Sanchez on probation. 

In October 2018, Sanchez again admitted violating probation. The 

court revoked probation, imposed a four-year prison term, but suspended the 

execution of the sentence and reinstated Sanchez on probation. 

In March 2019, Sanchez again admitted violating probation. Probation 

was revoked, and Sanchez was reinstated on probation. 

In March 2020, the court held a contested revocation hearing on the 

probation officer’s latest request to revoke probation. Following the 

evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Sanchez violated his probation 

because he was terminated from his anger management classes, had contact 

with the victim, and failed to report to the probation officer. 

The court declined to reinstate Sanchez on probation. It sentenced 

Sanchez to the four-year term, which had been imposed then suspended. 

Sanchez filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating that 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 Sanchez the 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

We will include only a summary of the final revocation proceeding. 

Sanchez has never appealed regarding his 2017 guilty plea, nor has he 

appealed any of the previous revocation proceedings.

At the evidentiary hearing, the probation officer testified Sanchez had 

been terminated from the anger management classes for excessive absences, 
3

Sanchez admitted contacting the victim, and did not report to the probation 

officer as directed. 

Sanchez testified he didn’t understand the classes, and he had 

transportation difficulties that prevented him from reporting to the probation 

officer. 

DISCUSSION

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

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in reviewing the 

record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 

(Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issue that was 

considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the 

trial court erred in revoking probation and in refusing to reinstate Sanchez 

on probation.

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 Sanchez on this appeal.
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

GUERRERO, J.