People v. Moran CA4/3

Filed 9/24/14 P. v. Moran CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050046

v. (Super. Ct. No. R00516 )

MIGUEL MORAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John L. Flynn, Judge. Affirmed. Jared M. Hartman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Miguel Moran appeals from an order finding him in violation of Postrelease Community Supervision (PRCS), committing him to county jail for 180 days, and reinstating his PRCS. His counsel on appeal filed an opening brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We granted defendant 30 days to file a supplemental brief. More than 30 days has passed and we have received no communication from defendant. We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and conclude there are no arguable issues. The order is therefore affirmed. FACTS Defendant, a Delhi criminal street gang member, pled guilty to unlawful theft or use of a vehicle in January 2011. He was ordered to serve two years in state prison, but was released on PRCS in November 2011. As a condition of his release, defendant was instructed that any new law violation may result in revocation of his PRCS release. In February 2014, defendant was arrested for possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) and drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a)) after a search of his residence and belongings yielded a small baggie of heroin and a methamphetamine pipe. This was not defendant’s first violation. He had been ordered to serve two 10-day flash incarceration periods and 90 days in county jail in 2013 as a result of prior violations. In March, the Orange County Probation Department filed a petition for revocation of his PRCS on the basis of the new law violation, and for not notifying his probation officer about the new law violation. In April, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the petition, citing Penal Code section 3063.1, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36). He claimed the PRCS Act of 2011 was an unauthorized amendment to Proposition 36,