Filed 7/28/16 P. v. Moncada 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

CARLOS MONCADA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B267716

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA180126)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, C.H. 

Rehm. Affirmed.

Morgan H. Daly, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________
2

On June 16, 1999, defendant and appellant Carlos Moncada entered a plea of no 

contest to sale or transportation of cocaine, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 

11352, subdivision (a). Defendant also admitted that the offense involved more than 28.5 

grams of pure cocaine or more than 57 grams of a substance containing cocaine, within 

the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 1203.073, subdivision (b)(1). Defendant 

was placed on formal probation for a period of three years, on various terms and 

conditions, including service of one year in the county jail and the obligation to report to 

the probation officer within one week of release from custody. 

Defendant violated probation several times by failing to report to the probation 

officer as directed. He was deported on more than one occasion and returned to the 

United States but never reported to the probation officer. Probation was summarily 

revoked in 2000, and at a 2002 violation hearing, defendant admitted the violation, 

probation was formally revoked and reinstated, with defendant waiving 180 days of 

custody credits and an order that he serve an additional 180 days in county jail. 

Probation was again summarily revoked in 2003. Defendant was found in violation of 

probation at a 2014 probation violation hearing. He was sentenced to three years in 

county jail. Execution of sentence was suspended, and again defendant was placed on

probation. Later in 2014 probation was summarily revoked. In 2015, defendant appeared 

in court, and probation was revoked and terminated after a formal violation hearing. The 

three year county jail sentence was executed.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order terminating probation and 

lifting the stay of execution on the sentence. Counsel was appointed to represent 

defendant on appeal. On June 13, 2016, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, 

but requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised by letter of his right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days. Defendant has not responded with a supplemental brief, and the 

time for filing has passed.
3

We have completed our independent review of the record, and conclude that 

appointed counsel’s obligations under Wende have been satisfied. Substantial evidence 

supports the trial court’s finding that defendant violated probation by failing to report to 

the probation officer as directed. Defendant was represented by competent counsel at the 

violation hearing. The term of the sentence was authorized by law. 

The order terminating probation and the judgment are affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins

(2000) 528 U.S. 259.)

KRIEGLER, Acting P.J.

We concur:

BAKER, J.

RAPHAEL, J.

 



Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant 

to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.