PEOPLE v. NIEBLA

No. D070838.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FERNANDO NIEBLA, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Steven J. Carroll , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

BENKE, J.

Fernando Niebla, Jr. admitted violating the terms and conditions of the postrelease community supervision imposed on him as a result of his 2010 conviction for transporting a controlled substance. (Former Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) The trial court revoked and reinstated his community supervision with the condition that he serve 13 days in jail and enroll in a year-long rehabilitation program. (Pen. Code, § 3455, subd. (a).)

Niebla appeals. His appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Niebla's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Niebla the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

For purposes of this section, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991, 994.)

In 2015, Niebla was placed on postrelease community supervision subject to various terms and conditions, including regular reporting to his probation officer and compliance with all laws. In June 2016, Niebla was released from jail after serving 160 days in custody based on a prior violation of those terms and conditions. Following his release, Niebla did not report to his probation officer, and he was later arrested for providing false identification to a peace officer. (Pen. Code, § 148.9.)

The Imperial County Probation Department filed a petition for revocation of Niebla's postrelease community supervision. Niebla demurred or moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it did not identify the case number corresponding to Niebla's underlying controlled substance offense and Niebla therefore may not have properly been on postrelease community supervision. The trial court amended the petition by interlineation, added the relevant case number, and denied the motion.

At a pretrial hearing, Niebla admitted violating the terms and conditions of his postrelease community supervision by failing to report to his probation officer within 48 hours of his release from jail, by violating California law, and by failing to report his arrest to this probation officer. The court found that Niebla violated the terms and conditions of his postrelease community supervision. It revoked and reinstated that supervision with the additional conditions that Niebla serve 13 days in jail and enroll in a year-long rehabilitation program. As noted, Niebla appeals.

DISCUSSION

Niebla's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Niebla's counsel also has not identified any possible issues under Anders.

We have independently reviewed the record under Wende. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Niebla in this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

McCONNELL, P. J. and HUFFMAN, J., concurs.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases