People v. Vallejo CA2/5

Filed 12/8/25 P. v. Vallejo CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B343877

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BA513059)

ENRIQUE VALLEJO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deborah S. Brazil, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer Peabody and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Enrique Vallejo (defendant) pled no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153(b)) and admitted to having a blood alcohol concentration of .20 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23538(b)(2)). Imposition of sentence was suspended, and the trial court placed defendant on probation for five years subject to certain conditions.1 When defendant failed to report to his probation officer, the trial court revoked probation and issued a bench warrant. Defendant later admitted a probation violation “for failing to report to probation as ordered and failing to complete . . . mandatory obligations of probation . . . .” The trial court terminated probation and sentenced defendant to the mid- term of two years in state prison. Defendant appealed, and this Court appointed counsel to represent him.2 After examining the record, defendant’s attorney on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 that raises no issues and asks us to independently review the record. Defendant’s attorney also submitted a declaration explaining defendant was released from prison before the attorney was appointed and he had no current contact information for defendant. This Court contacted defendant’s trial attorney, who was also unable to provide contact information for defendant, and sent defendant a letter at his last