People v. Salas CA2/6

Filed 2/18/26 P. v. Salas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B342868 (Super. Ct. No. VA154888) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ANDREW SALAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Andrew Salas appeals following a no contest plea to unauthorized use of personal identifying information (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)). The trial court initially suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on two years formal probation, including 100 days of community labor. In July 2022 and March 2023, appellant admitted to violation of probation, and the court revoked and reinstated his probation with modification. In October 2024, the court held a contested probation violation hearing. Two witnesses testified they paid appellant for

contracting services he did not complete. Appellant had claimed he worked under his uncle Omar Salas’s license. Omar Salas testified he was not appellant’s relative or friend, nor did he give appellant permission to use his contractor’s license information. The court found appellant in violation of probation and imposed the high term of three years. In January 2025, the court resentenced appellant to the middle term of two years. We appointed counsel to represent appellant. Counsel examined the record and filed an opening brief requesting the court independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On November 3, 2025, we sent a notice to the address on file for appellant advising he had 30 days to submit any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished us to consider. We have received no such submission from appellant. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.) The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.