Filed 7/25/16 P. v. White CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALFONSO L. WHITE,
Defendant and Appellant. B267521
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA055259)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eric P. Harmon, Judge. Affirmed.

Julia J. Spikes, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *2

Defendant Alfonso L. White pled no contest to burglary and attempting to dissuade a
witness. Following defendant’s plea, t he court imposed sente nce, suspended his sentence
, and placed him on probation. Defendant later violated his probation
, and the court then imposed the suspended sentence. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief requ esting that this court review the record to determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
BACKROUND
1. Events Underlying Defendant ’ s Plea At the preliminary hearing, Tyeisha Mercer testified that defe ndant was her ex

- boyfriend

. On January 31, 2012 , at approximately 9:30 p.m., she was home with her friend s Tyla Ashe
, Dee, and Mike
, and her three children

. (The record does not provide Dee ’s or Mike ’ s surname.)
Defendant banged on Mercer’s front door
, orderi ng her four or five times to open it

. Mercer
told defendant to leave

. She called the police

. Defendant held a hammer and threatened to “fuck t he car up” and then banged on the door wi t h the hammer

. Dee and Mike tried to leave Mercer’s house and
, as the y were leaving
, defendant grabbed Mercer’s hair

. Defendant pulled Mercer outside the house and dragged her on the g round

. He dragged h er through the grass and ripp ed her shirt, removing it

. Defendant hit Mercer’s chest

. He then continued to drag her

. Defendant also tried to kick Mercer’s face

. Mercer told defendant she was calling the police
, and he grabbed Mercer’s cell phone

. Mercer ran to her neighbor’s house to call the police

. Ashe testified that she heard defendant banging on the door and saw him holding a
hammer

. When Mercer opened the door, defendant pulled her hair and dragged her outside the
door

. Defendant hit Mercer and tried to kick her in the face

. Defendant pushed Ashe, who fell
and hit her knee

. Defendant ripped off Mercer’s cloth ing

. 2. Defendant’s Plea Defendant pled no contest to o ne count of burglary (Pen. Code
, § 459) and one count of attempting to dissuade a witness by preventing a report of victimizatio n to law enforcement (Pen. Code
, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1))

. Defendant was ordered to serve six years eight months in3

state prison

. The sentence was suspended
, and defendant was placed on five years of formal probation with several terms and conditions

. 3. Defendant Violates Probation and the Suspended Sentence Is Imposed
Def endant did not comply with his payment obligations or reporting obligations

. He did not complete the required domestic violence program

. Defendant then stopped reporting to

pro b ation
, and his whereabouts were unknown for one and a half years

. The probat ion department reported that in May 2015
, defen d ant was arrested for a assault with a dea d ly weapon, criminal threats, a nd threatening a victim with a weapon

. According to the probation department, defendant pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense

. Defendan t later admitted that he violated probation and had been arrested

. He admitted that he failed to comply with other conditions of probation

. The court imposed the suspended

sentence

. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent def endant. Counsel identified no issues. We advised defendant that he had 30 days to submit a letter identifying any contentions, and defendant did not file a letter. We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no arguable issue exists,
and defen dant’s counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities. ( Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436,
441

- 443; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123

- 124; Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279

- 284.)
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

FLIER, J.
W E CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. GRIMES, J.