THE PEOPLE v. JOVAN MARTINEZ MORAN

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeal, Second District, California.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOVAN MARTINEZ MORAN, Defendant and Appellant.

B219924

Decided: November 23, 2010

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jovan Martinez Moran appeals from the order revoking his probation and requiring him to serve a 16-month state prison term for the conviction that followed his no contest plea to felony vandalism (Pen.Code, § 594, subd. (a)).

We appointed counsel to represent Moran in the matter.   After examining the record, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record.  (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)   On October 4, 2010, we directed appointed counsel to immediately send the record on this appeal and a copy of the opening brief to Moran and notified Moran that within 30 days from the date of the notice he could submit by brief or by letter any grounds of appeal, contentions or argument he wished us to consider.   Moran did not respond.

We briefly describe the facts and procedural history of the case, the crime of which Moran was convicted and the punishment imposed.  (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)

An information dated April 30, 2007, charged Moran with (1) two counts of felony vandalism (Pen.Code, § 594, subd. (a));  and (2) one count of misdemeanor possession of tools to commit vandalism or graffiti (Pen.Code, § 594.2, subd. (a)).

On May 15, 2007, Moran pleaded no contest to felony vandalism in count 1. The trial court (Hon. Abraham A. Khan) suspended sentence and placed Moran on formal probation for three years.   The conditions of probation required that Moran, among other things, perform 90 days of work for CalTrans, pay restitution to his victims, report to the probation department, and cooperate with his probation officer in a plan for counseling.1  The court dismissed the remaining two counts.

Slightly more than one year later, on July 16, 2008, the trial court (Judge Khan) summarily revoked Moran's probation based on the probation officer's report that Moran had failed to report monthly, to enroll with CalTrans and to provide proof of enrollment for counseling.   Moran also was not current on his restitution payments.   The court noted that attempts to contact Moran had been unsuccessful and then issued a bench warrant.

After Moran surrendered on the bench warrant, the trial court (Hon. Carol Williams Elswick) held a formal probation revocation hearing on October 2, 2009.   At that hearing, the probation officer testified for the People, and Moran and his mother testified on behalf of Moran.   According to the probation officer, Moran failed to report to the probation department after December 2007, failed to perform any work for CalTrans or to complete counseling, and made only one restitution payment.   Moran conceded the parole violations but asked that he receive another chance at probation instead of a prison or jail term.   He and his mother testified that he knew his probation responsibilities but had not performed as required because, after his maternal grandmother died in November 2007, he has been required to take care of both his mother, who since her mother's death has suffered from depression and anxiety, and his maternal uncle, who is disabled and living with Moran and his family.   Because of her illness, Moran's mother has not been able to drive him to report on his probation, and Moran would not be able to care for his uncle if he were serving a jail or prison term.   After hearing the evidence, the trial court found Moran in violation of probation and required him to serve the low term of 16 months in state prison.2  Moran appealed.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Moran's appointed attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists.  (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. In pleading no contest on count 1, Moran expressly agreed to pay restitution to the victims on both counts as well as on certain noncharged offenses.  (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754;  People v. Beck (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 209, 216.)   At the time of his plea, Moran was on summary probation in a separate case for misdemeanor vandalism..  FN1. In pleading no contest on count 1, Moran expressly agreed to pay restitution to the victims on both counts as well as on certain noncharged offenses.  (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754;  People v. Beck (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 209, 216.)   At the time of his plea, Moran was on summary probation in a separate case for misdemeanor vandalism.

FN2. The trial court imposed, among other fees, a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee and a $30 court security fee.   Moran requested the trial court to strike the $30 criminal conviction assessment fee and reduce the court security fee to $20.   As of the filing of his counsel's brief pursuant to People v. Wende,supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, the trial court had not ruled on Moran's request.   Moran also requested an increase in his custody credits pursuant to the amendments to Penal Code section 4019, effective on January 25, 2010, which the trial court awarded on July 9, 2010..  FN2. The trial court imposed, among other fees, a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee and a $30 court security fee.   Moran requested the trial court to strike the $30 criminal conviction assessment fee and reduce the court security fee to $20.   As of the filing of his counsel's brief pursuant to People v. Wende,supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, the trial court had not ruled on Moran's request.   Moran also requested an increase in his custody credits pursuant to the amendments to Penal Code section 4019, effective on January 25, 2010, which the trial court awarded on July 9, 2010.

CHANEY, J. JOHNSON, J.