California Court of Appeal Feb 4, 2026 No. E086042Unpublished
Filed 2/4/26 P. v. Mascio CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E086042
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF2205018)
JASON PATRICK MASCIO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Brian Hill, Judge.
(Retired judge of the Santa Barbara Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Debra A. Postil, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Jason Patrick Mascio appeals the Riverside County
Superior Court’s order revoking his probation and entering a judgment against him
pursuant to Penal Code sections 1203.2.1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In December 2022, defendant pled guilty to (i) being a convicted felon and an
addict in possession of a ghost gun in violation of section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) and
(ii) having ammunition and reloaded ammunition in his custody and control in violation
of section 30305, subdivision (a)(1). He also admitted a prior strike. In exchange, the
trial court agreed to grant defendant’s Romero motion2 and to place defendant on
probation upon defendant’s successful completion of an inpatient drug program. The
court also advised defendant that, if the court ultimately had to sentence him, he would
receive a minimum of 32 months in state prison, which would be doubled because of the
strike prior. The plea agreement also included a notation, “fallout: 32 months prison
suspended” [capitalization omitted] and a waiver of any right to appeal defendant may
have.
Defendant completed the program and in March 2023, the court struck the strike
prior and placed defendant on probation for two years.
In October 2024, the People petitioned the trial court to violate defendant’s
probation pursuant to section 1203.2, subdivision (b) because he was using drugs and
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
2
because he had failed to comply with requirements of enrolling in a substance abuse
program and reporting to the probation office.
The trial court revoked defendant’s probation and released him on his own
recognizance pending arraignment on the petition and a drug court evaluation. While the
hearing was pending, defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance in
violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) on two separate
occasions, once in October 2024 and again in April 2025.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found defendant violated his
probation and sentenced him to a term of two years and eight months in state prison (that
is, a 32-month sentence, consisting of the midterm of two years for the gun possession
and eight months for the being a felon in possession of ammunition). The court
dismissed the two possession charges. Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and asking us to
conduct an independent review of the record. Relying on Wende, supra, at pages 440–
442, counsel posits that we are required to review the record to determine if it reveals any
issue that, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of
the judgment. To assist this court’s review of the record, counsel notes she considered
whether the trial court “abuse[d] its discretion by imposing a middle prison term for a
violation of probation.”
3
Contrary to counsel’s suggestion, an appeal from a postjudgment order revoking
parole does not implicate the protections afforded by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages
441–442, such as requiring independent review of the record by Courts of Appeal if
appointed counsel files a no-issues brief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216,
226–228 (Delgadillo).) Rather, appointed appellate counsel who are unable to find an
arguable issue in a postjudgment appeal must file a brief informing the appellate court of
that determination and include a concise recitation of the facts bearing on the court’s
orders. (Id., at p. 231.) Upon receipt of the brief, the appellate court is to send a copy of
it to the defendant along with a notice informing the defendant (i) of the right to file a
supplemental letter or brief, and (ii) that the failure to file a letter or brief within 30 days
may result in dismissal of the appeal. (Id., at pp. 231–232.)
If the defendant files a brief or letter, the court is required to evaluate the
arguments he or she raises and must issue a written opinion. (Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 232.) If the defendant does not respond to the court’s notice, however, then
the court may exercise its discretion to dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (Ibid.) If it
chooses to dismiss, it may do so with or without a written opinion. (Ibid.) In all cases,
the court has discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. (Ibid.)
In this case, we notified defendant that his counsel had filed a brief stating no
arguable issues could be found and that this court may, but is not required, to conduct an
independent review of the record, citing Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. The notice
also invited defendant to file any arguments he deemed necessary and cautioned that
4
failure to timely file a supplemental brief might result in the dismissal of his appeal as
abandoned. Defendant did not file a brief.
Although we properly sent a Delgadillo notice to defendant, it is reasonably
psossible that defendant may have been confused by, or even relied upon, the incorrect
information provided by his counsel that Wende procedures apply to his case.
Accordingly, we independently reviewed the record on appeal, and found no error.
DISPOSITION
The order revoking defendant’s parole is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
MILLER J. CODRINGTON J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the order revoking the defendant's probation after conducting an independent review of the record, despite noting that Wende procedures do not apply to postjudgment appeals.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a middle prison term for a violation of probation.
Whether the protections of People v. Wende apply to an appeal from a postjudgment order revoking probation.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Contrary to counsel’s suggestion, an appeal from a postjudgment order revoking parole does not implicate the protections afforded by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441–442”
“Accordingly, we independently reviewed the record on appeal, and found no error.”