People v. Sepetaio CA2/3

Filed 3/17/15 P. v. Sepetaio CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B256277

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA095550) v.

PETERU SEPETAIO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order revoking the suspension of execution of sentence of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James B. Pierce, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeffrey Lewis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Appellant Peteru Sepetaio appeals following revocation of probation previously granted upon his plea of no contest to resisting an executive officer, with an admission he suffered three prior felony convictions for which he served separate prison terms.1 (Pen. Code, §§ 69, 667.5, subd. (b).) The court revoked the suspension of execution of a previously imposed prison sentence of four years. We affirm the order revoking the suspension of execution. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Background. On June 21, 2013, appellant entered the above no contest plea and admission. On that date, the court sentenced appellant to prison for four years, suspended execution of sentence, and placed him on formal felony probation for three years on the condition, inter alia, he obey all laws. Appellant accepted his probation conditions. A probation report dated March 10, 2014, alleges, inter alia, as follows. A condition of appellant’s probation was that he obey all laws. On January 26, 2014, appellant battered Kevin Vargas, thereby violating appellant’s probation. Appellant engaged in other unrelated conduct that violated various probation conditions. 2. Probation Revocation Hearing Evidence. a. People’s Evidence. Viewed in accordance with the usual rules on appeal (People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848-849), the evidence presented at appellant’s April 16, 2014 probation revocation hearing established as follows. Vargas had known appellant six years. In February 2014, Vargas was in a car on a Long Beach street. Appellant drove up, blocking Vargas’s car. Vargas’s aunt (later identified as Susan Saavedra) was in appellant’s car.