People v. Winrow CA4/3

Filed 7/27/15 P. v. Winrow 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051245

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 13WF0170 & 13HF2107) AARON DEMONE WINROW, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Affirmed. Amy Parekh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

The trial court found Aaron Demone Winrow violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The court lifted the stay on execution of a previously imposed five-year prison sentence. Winrow appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel summarized the facts and procedural history of the case, and cited possible legal arguments, but raised no specific issues, and asked this court to review the record to determine whether there were any arguable matters. Counsel submitted a declaration stating she thoroughly reviewed the record. Counsel advised Winrow she would file a Wende brief, and provided him with a copy. She advised Winrow he could personally file a supplemental brief on his own behalf raising any issues he believed worthy of consideration, and stated she was making a copy of the record available to him. Counsel did not argue against her client or declare the appeal was frivolous. She advised Winrow he could ask the court to relieve her as counsel. We gave Winrow 30 days to file a supplemental brief, but he has not responded. We have reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and therefore affirm the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Orange County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint (case No. 13WF0170) in January 2013, later amended in March 2013, alleging Winrow committed first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5) on January 20, 2012, and extortion by force or threat (Pen. Code, §§ 518, 520) on November 23, 2012. It also alleged he possessed methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and hydrocodone (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350), received stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), and possessed a fictitious instrument (Pen. Code, § 476) on January 11, 2013.~(ct2)~ The complaint further alleged Winrow had previously served a prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) after suffering a conviction for forgery (Pen. Code, § 470) in March 2008.