Filed 6/24/16 P. v. C hoi CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERNEST JIM CHOI,
Defendant and Appellant. B267737
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 5PR03876)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William L. Sadler, Commissioner. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant, Ernest Jim Choi, appeals from a postjudgment order

. Defendant was
convicted in August 2013 after pleading nolo contendere to stal king in violation of Penal
Code section 646.9

. 1 He was subsequently released from state prison subject to postrelease community supervision. (§ 3450 et seq.) On June 23, 2015, a revocation petition was filed. (§§ 1203.2, subd. (b)(1), 3455.) On Se ptember 24, 2015, the trial
court found defendant in violation of the conditions of his release. T he trial court
revoked and reinstated postrelease community supervision with modified conditions. We
affirm the order

. During the revocation hearing, the p arties at times referred to defendant being on “ probation. ” He was not, however, on probation.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Wende Brief

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an “ Opening Brief ” in which no issues were raised. Instead, appointed appellate counsel requested this court independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. (See
Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277

- 284.) On April 11, 2016 , we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. After conducting our mandatory review of the record, we ordered the filing of the normal record on appeal because of an apparent error in the calculation of presentence conduct credits. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unl ess otherwise noted.3 B. Substantial Evidence Supported t he Violation Order

Substantial evidence supported the trial court ’ s violation finding

. ( Cf. People v.
Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1161 [ probation revocation decision reviewed for
substantial evidence ]; People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 773 [ same ] .) The
terms and conditions of defendant ’ s supervision included permitting search of his residence and complying with instructions by local supervision authorities. Defendant refused to open his door when probation of ficers conducted a field visit o n June 14, 2015.
D efendant also failed to report as instruc ted on June 15, 2015. Defendant had not contacted the probation department since that time. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it revoked and reinstated supervision with modified conditions . ( Cf. People v. Catalan (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 173, 179 [mandatory supervision]; People v.
Urke , supra, 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 773 [probation]; see People v. Rodriguez ( 1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 443 [ “‘ the determination whether to grant or revoke prob ation is largely discretionary ’” ] , 445 [ “ [o] ur trial courts are granted great discretion in determining whether to revoke probation ” ] .)

C. Defendant ’ s Assertions

Defendant contends that as a condition of his plea he would be subject to parole but not p ost

- release community supervision. H e also states in his letter brief that he “ may

not ” have entered into the plea if he had been advised otherwise. Defendant filed a declaration in support of his motion to terminate supervision. Defendant’s declaration does not support th e claim on appeal that a condition of his plea was that he would not be subject to post release community supervision. In a September 14, 2015 declaration, defendant avers, “ On August 1, 2013, I plead nolo contendere as part of a plea b argain that assured me that I would not have to report to a parole or probation office upon release from prison. ” (Italics added.) Defendant also acknowledges that on February 5, 2014, he signed a “ Notice and Conditions of Postrelease Community Supervisi on ” form4

and indicated, “ I have read, or have had read to me, and understand these conditions as they apply to me. ” In any event, release on parole versus postrelease community supervision was not a negotia ble term of defendant ’ s plea . As the Court of Ap peal has observed, “ [Postrelease community supervision] does not change any terms of a
defendant ’ s sentence, but merely modifies the agency that will supervise the defendant after release from [custody]. ” ( People v. Jones (2014) 231 Cal.App.4t h 1257, 1267 ; see People v. Douglas (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 855, 864

- 865.) Moreover, the Court of Appeal has explained, “ [Postrelease community supervision] conditions, like parole conditions, are not a matter of choice, and there is no voluntary consent to the
condit ions. ” ( People v. Jones , supra , 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 1267, fn. 8 ; see People v. Douglas
, supra , 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 865 .)
D efendant further argues stalking is a serious felony making him ineligible for
post release community supervision. (§ 3451, sub d. (b)(1).) That contention is without merit. Stalking is not a serious felony. ( § 1192

. 7 , subd. (c).) Defendant ha s not raised any arguable contentions which would warrant setting aside any of the trial court’s
orders.5 III. DISPOSITION

The Septemb er 24, 2015 order revoking and reinstating postrelease community supervision is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P.J.
We concur:

KRIEGLER, J.

BAKER, J.