People v. Mendez CA2/5
Filed 8/7/23 P. v. Mendez CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B323190
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 2PB01479) v.
FRANKY MENDEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jeffrey S. Cohen-Laurie, Judge. Affirmed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under the appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Gabriel Bradley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________
Defendant and appellant Franky Mendez appeals from the order revoking and reinstating his post-release community supervision (community supervision). We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding defendant willfully violated the terms of release, and therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 4, 2021, defendant was convicted by plea of felony domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and sentenced to the low term of two years in prison.1 On April 13, 2022, he was released from prison on community supervision, and transported by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to the Pomona Valley area probation office. There, he met with Deputy Probation Officer (DPO) Noboa. Defendant was uncooperative and refused to complete the orientation process, claiming he was not under the jurisdiction of community supervision. He left the probation office. That same day, DPO John Roque, from the Alhambra area office, filled out a “Desertion Report” setting forth the above events and recommending community supervision be revoked. The next day DPO Roque filed a petition for revocation. The court issued an arrest warrant. Just over a week later, on April 22, 2022, DPO Roque filed a supplemental report. He set forth the following: On April 19, 2022, an LAPD officer attempted to conduct a traffic stop on a vehicle defendant was driving, which the officer determined had
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)