People v. Jacome CA4/1

Filed 3/4/21 P. v. Jacome CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D078140

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. PLBD1845)

ALEXANDER JACOME,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal arises from the latest in a series of parole revocation proceedings in the Superior Court. In the current proceeding, like the earlier ones, appellant waived an evidentiary hearing and stipulated to revocation, reinstatement, and a specific term of custody.

In 2017, Alexander Jacome was convicted of battery on a transit officer

(Pen. Code,1 § 243.3) and received a two year prison sentence. He was paroled in August 2017. There have been multiple revocation proceedings in the trial court. In each case, Jacome waived evidentiary hearing. Jacome appealed from the revocation proceeding in June 2019, and this court affirmed the order in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Jacome (Sept. 30, 2019, D076087) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2020, another revocation petition was filed. The petition was resolved by stipulation filed under section 977 (waiver of personal appearance). Jacome filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Jacome the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Jacome stipulated he violated the conditions of parole, waived evidentiary hearing, and agreed to a period of custody. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: