Filed 8/17/26 P. v. Arias CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B344008
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA085975
v.
HECTOR SAUL ARIAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lisa Strassner, Judge. Affirmed.
Sarvenaz Bahar, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Hector Saul Arias appeals from an order revoking his
probation. His counsel filed a no issues brief asking us to
independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In November 2023, Arias pleaded no contest to recklessly
causing a fire to an inhabited structure. (Pen. Code, § 452, subd.
(b).) In December 2023, the trial court placed Arias on formal
probation for two years, subject to various conditions, including
several that required him to consistently report to the probation
department. The court also imposed probation conditions
requiring Arias to enroll in drug rehabilitation and arson
counseling programs.
On January 22, 2024, the trial court issued a bench
warrant for Arias after he did not show up for a scheduled
hearing. On January 29, 2024, the court quashed the warrant,
revoked Arias’s probation, ordered the probation department to
prepare a supplemental report regarding Arias’s progress, and
ordered Arias to return on a later date for a setting of violation
hearing.
On March 14, 2024, at the setting of violation hearing,
Arias submitted proof to the court that he had enrolled in drug
treatment. The court ordered Arias to bring a drug treatment
progress report to his next court hearing, as well as proof of
enrollment and a progress report for arson counseling. The court
ordered another supplemental report from the probation
department.
2
On April 15, 2024, Arias failed to appear for a court hearing
without sufficient excuse. After considering the supplemental
probation report, the trial court concluded Arias was not in
compliance with his probation terms requiring participation in
treatment programs and that he report to his probation officer.
The court issued a bench warrant for Arias.
After Arias was arrested on the bench warrant, the trial
court held a probation violation hearing on February 10, 2025.
At that hearing, probation officer Brandy Bailey testified that
although Arias was required to report to the probation
department on a monthly basis, he had only reported in
December 2023 and never thereafter. Bailey further testified the
probation records contained no evidence Arias had complied with
the drug rehabilitation and arson treatment probation conditions.
Arias presented no evidence, but his counsel argued that he
should not be found in violation of probation because his crime
was related to a history of substance abuse. Counsel further
stated that Arias had initially enrolled in drug treatment when
placed on probation, but he was unhoused for most of the time he
was out of custody. Counsel also indicated that Arias’s ability to
comply with various probation conditions was impeded by the
fact that he had no money.1 Counsel asked that Arias be referred
to a substance abuse program or a residential rehabilitation with
a conditional release
1 When cross examining probation officer Bailey, defense
counsel asked several questions suggesting that the arson
counseling and drug treatment programs may cost money that
Arias did not have.
3
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found by a
preponderance of the evidence that Arias had violated his
probation. The court stated that Arias, at a minimum, failed to
report to probation. It also noted there was no evidence in the
record that Arias had received arson counseling or drug
treatment. The court further stated that Arias was not a suitable
candidate for probation because he “deserted [ ] almost
immediately [after] being placed on probation.” The court
sentenced Arias to a low term of two years in state prison and
awarded him 422 days of custody credits. Arias timely appealed.
On April 6, 2026, Arias’s counsel filed a brief raising no
issues on appeal and asking us to review the record
independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Arias did not
respond to our letter advising him of his right to file
supplemental briefing.
DISCUSSION
We are sympathetic to Arias’s challenges concerning
substance abuse and lack of resources. However, we have
examined the entire record and are satisfied no arguable issues
exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278–279; Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.) We therefore affirm the order
revoking probation.
4
DISPOSITION
The order dated February 10, 2025, is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS
TAMZARIAN, J.
We concur:
MORI, ACTING P. J.
DAUM, J.
5