People v. Mendoza CA4/3

Filed 5/28/15 P. v. Mendoza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051069

v. (Super. Ct. No. P-00460)

GERALDO MENDOZA OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Appellant Geraldo Mendoza was convicted of having sex with his 17-year- old sister and his 10-year-old stepsister. He was imprisoned for those offenses and he is required to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290. One of the conditions of his parole is that he is to have no contact with any minor children. He has violated this and other conditions of his parole on three occasions in the 20 months since his release from custody, including violations for being in the presence of minor children and possessing pornographic materials. The parole violation that comes before us now took place late last year when police responded to a domestic violence call at his home and found him with his girlfriend and three-week-old son. He was arrested for violating the provision of his parole that forbids him being in the presence of minors. That provision reads, “You shall not have contact with your biological or adopted children. ‘No contact’ means no contact in any form, whether direct or indirect, personally, by telephone, in writing, through electronic media, e-mail, computer, or through another person, etc.” Appellant argued the condition was vague and overbroad. The former complaint had to do with the word “contact” and whether that prohibited mere presence with the child or only touching or communicating with the child. The “overbreadth” complaint was that it forbade contact with his biological son. The trial court rejected both arguments and Mendoza appealed. We appointed counsel to represent him on that appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the trial court he could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. Mendoza was invited to express his own objections to the proceedings against him, but did not. Under the law, this put the onus on us to review the record and see if we could find any issues that might result in some kind of amelioration of Mendoza’s lot. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) It should be emphasized that our search was not for issues upon which Mendoza would prevail, but only issues upon which he might possibly prevail.