Court Opinion

ID: 9369047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 18:03:42.358502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.286443
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/7/23 P. v. Contreras 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                  2d Crim. No. B322199
                                                          (Super. Ct. Nos. 18CR10377,
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    19CR11852)
                                                            (Santa Barbara County)
v.

BRANDON TROY
CONTRERAS,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      In October 2018, C.Z. woke up and saw Brandon Troy
Contreras carrying property from her home. Sheriff’s deputies
apprehended Contreras later that day. He still had C.Z.’s
property. He was in a stolen car.
      Prosecutors charged Contreras with first degree residential
burglary (Pen. Code,1 §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), receiving stolen
property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and unlawfully driving or taking a
vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). They also alleged that a

         1 Unlabeled         statutory references are to the Penal Code.
person was present when Contreras committed burglary (§ 667.5,
subd. (c)(21)). Contreras pleaded no contest to the burglary in
exchange for the dismissal of the other two charges and the hot
prowl allegation. The trial court suspended imposition of
sentence, and placed him on three years of formal probation.
       In December 2019, Contreras stole items from a grocery
store. When confronted by the store’s owner, Contreras returned
the stolen goods. He also threw a rock at the owner.
       Prosecutors charged Contreras with assault with force
likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and
misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5, subd. (a)). They also alleged
that he had suffered a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12,
subds. (a)-(d)) and prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd.
(a)(1)). Contreras pleaded guilty to the two charges, and
admitted the allegations. The trial court continued sentencing
and released him to a residential treatment program.
       Contreras violated his probation terms and went through
several competency proceedings over the next few years. When
his competency was restored, the trial court revoked probation
and sentenced him to four years in state prison on his 2018
burglary conviction and a consecutive two years on his 2019
assault. It dismissed his shoplifting conviction, struck the prior
strike and prior serious felony enhancements, and suspended all
fines and fees. Contreras’s sentences were deemed served, and
he was released on parole. This appeal followed.
       We appointed counsel to represent Contreras in this
appeal. After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening
brief that raises no arguable issues. On December 15, 2022, we
advised Contreras by mail that he had 30 days within which to

                                  2
submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We
have not received a response.
      We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
Contreras’s attorney fully complied with his responsibilities and
that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, 441.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             YEGAN, J.

                                3
                   Pauline Maxwell, Judge

           Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

               ______________________________

     Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.