Filed 6/13/ 16 P. v. Chavez

- Garcia CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JHONY DIONICIO CHAVEZ

- GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B267631 (Super. Ct. No. BA439257

- 01) (Los Angeles County)

Jhony Dionicio Chavez

- Garcia appeals from the judgment entered after he
had pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine fo r the purpose of sale. (Health &

Saf. Code, § 11378.) A ppellant expressly waived his right to a preliminary hearing and
to a jury trial. He did not file a motion to suppress evidence

. The trial court suspended
the imposition of sentence and placed him on formal probation for three years on

condition that he pay s specified fines and fees and that he p erform 200 hours of
community service for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Appellant
subsequently violated probation and it was revo ked . Probation was reinstated on the

same terms and conditions except that appellant was required to serve 180 days in county
jail.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's

review of the record, sh e filed an opening brief raising no issues. Counsel and this court2

advised appellant that he could personally file a supplemental brief. Counsel mailed him
copies of the opening brief and record on appeal.

On May 31, 2016, appellant filed a lengthy supplemental brief en titled,

"DECLARATION OF JHONY DIONICIO CHAVEZ GARCIA IN SUPPORT APPEAL

PETITION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

. " W e " describe[] the contentions
personally raised by [appellant] and the reasons those contentions fail. " ( People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal. 4th 10 6, 124.)

A ppellant contends: (1) "the record does not support the non

- trial judge's

conclu sion that he knowingly, intelli gently, and voluntarily waived his right to trial with
jurors," (2) " the evidence at the time of the arrest was no t properly obtained," and (3) "the
prosecutor did not honor the plea bargain of entering a plea of guilty in exchange for 200
hours of Caltrans community servi ce and two years of probation." Appellant asserts that
the prosecutor "assured [him that ] in exchange for [ his ] plea [he] would not serve jail
time or be subj ect to pay monetary restitution " and that he would be on probation for two

years. Instead, he was placed on probation for three years on condition that he serve "a
few months in jail, [pay] a fine close to $ 3, 200

, [and perfor m] 200 hours of community

service at Caltrans."

The first two contentions are forfeited because they are conclusory. They
are not supported by record references, citation s to authority, or meaningful analysis.

(See People v. Roberto V. (200 1) 93 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1364, fn. 6.) Appellant also

forfeited the second contention that "the evidence at the time of the arrest was not
properly obtained" because he did not move to suppress the evidence. (Pen. Code,

§ 1538.5, subd. (m).)

As to the t hird contention, the record shows that no jail time was imposed

as a condition of the original probation . Appellant was not misled to believe that, if he
violated probation, no jail time would be imposed. The trial judge informed him, "[I]f
you violate t he terms and conditions of your probation, . . . I could sentence you up to
three years in custody."3 The trial court did not impose " a fine close to $3,200 ." T he fines and fees

were as follows : a $40 " court operations assessment, " a $30 " criminal conv iction

assessment, " a $50 laboratory analysis fee , a $300 restitution fine, and a " probation

revocation restitution fine " of $300 to "become effective upon the revocation of
probation." Thus, if probation were not revoked, the total fines and fees would b e $420.
If probation were revoked, the total would be $720. Nothing in the record supports
appellant's allegation that the prosecutor assured him that he would not "be subj ect to pay
monetary restitution. "

Before the trial court took appellant's plea, it made clear that he would be
on probation for three years, not two years. The court said, "Mr. Garcia, you will be on
probation for three years." The court then asked appellant whether "anyone [had]
promised you anything else . . . to get you to plead ?" Appellant answered, "No." If the
prosecutor had promised him a probationary period of only two years, appellant should

have answered, "Yes."

Having examined the entire record, counsel's opening brief, and appellant's
supplemental brief, we conclude that counsel has fully complied with her duties and that
no arguable issue exists. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

We concur:

PERREN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.David M. Ho rwitz, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Lenore De Vita, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.