People v. Choi CA2/5

Filed 6/24/16 P. v. Choi CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B267737

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 5PR03876) v.

ERNEST JIM CHOI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William L. Sadler, Commissioner. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant, Ernest Jim Choi, appeals from a postjudgment order. Defendant was convicted in August 2013 after pleading nolo contendere to stalking in violation of Penal Code section 646.9.1 He was subsequently released from state prison subject to postrelease community supervision. (§ 3450 et seq.) On June 23, 2015, a revocation petition was filed. (§§ 1203.2, subd. (b)(1), 3455.) On September 24, 2015, the trial court found defendant in violation of the conditions of his release. The trial court revoked and reinstated postrelease community supervision with modified conditions. We affirm the order. During the revocation hearing, the parties at times referred to defendant being on “probation.” He was not, however, on probation.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Wende Brief

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. Instead, appointed appellate counsel requested this court independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284.) On April 11, 2016, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. After conducting our mandatory review of the record, we ordered the filing of the normal record on appeal because of an apparent error in the calculation of presentence conduct credits. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities.