People v. Castilleja CA3

Filed 2/24/15 P. v. Castilleja CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G049886

v. (Super. Ct. No. R-00238)

TRENIDAD CASTILLEJA, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Christopher J. Evans, Temporary Judge (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21). Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Trenidad Castilleja, Jr., on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court he found no issues to argue on his client’s behalf. We gave Castilleja 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and he did not file a brief. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The Wende court explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of the proceedings and the facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When specific issues are raised by the appellant himself in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Castilleja did not file a supplemental brief raising any issues. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel provided the court with information as to two issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel questioned whether the record revealed Castilleja’s time on Post-Community Supervision (PCS) was in excess of three years in contravention of Penal Code section 3455, subdivision (e), and whether the trial court erred in denying Castilleja’s motion to terminate his PCS. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. FACTS In November 2009, Castilleja pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property in San Luis Obispo County in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a), and was sentenced to two years in prison. Following his release from custody two years later, Castilleja was placed on PCS in Orange County.