P. v. Failla
Filed 1/4/13 P. v. Failla
CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
PAUL
FAILLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
E055737
(Super.Ct.No. FVIVS020297)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court of
Bernardino County.
Jules E. Fleuret, Judge.
Affirmed.
James
R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Paul Failla
appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for a
PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
In
1989, defendant was convicted of burglary
(§ 459) and sexual penetration by foreign object (§ 289) in Los Angeles County. He was sent to state prison, and in 1994 he
was paroled and moved to San Bernardino County. Defendant filed a petition for a certificate
of rehabilitation and pardon (§§ 4852.01, 4852.06), which would allow him
to seek a gubernatorial pardon of his offenses.
Following a hearing, the trial court denied that request and ruled that
he had to wait five years from the date of the denial before he could file
another petition. (See
1514, 1516 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two] (Failla).)
On June 16, 2011, defendant filed another
petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. On August
4, 2011, the trial court ordered the district attorney’s office to
complete an investigation on defendant’s background and report back to the
court at the next hearing. On October 20, 2011, the People indicated that
they had completed the investigation and determined that, pursuant to section
4582.01, subdivision (c), defendant was not eligible for relief. The court ordered the defense to file
documents in support of the relief requested, and the People to file any
opposition, by specified dates. On February 22, 2012, the court heard oral argument
by both sides and denied the petition in light of the seriousness of the
underlying offenses and defendant’s lengthy criminal history.
DISCUSSION
Defendant
appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent
him. Counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of
and Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and
the following potential arguable issue:
whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s
petition. Counsel has also requested
this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, which he has done.
In his brief, he argues that he was not given a fair and impartial
hearing. He then claims that he was
released from prison in 1994, and has never been arrested, charged or convicted
since then. He also claims that a false
report on his background was filed by the Bureau of Investigation. Defendant’s claims are “‘perfunctorily
asserted without argument in support . . . .’â€
(People v. Williams (1997) 16
Cal.4th 153, 206.) He fails to make any
legal argument or cite to any authority in support of his claims. We need not consider mere contentions of
error unaccompanied by legal argument. (
884.)
Pursuant
to the mandate of People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential
error and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We
concur:
McKINSTER
J.
RICHLI
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All further statutory
references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
name="_ftn2" title=""> [2] Defendant filed a previous
appeal in which he contended the trial court erred in calculating the waiting
period to apply for another certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. This court affirmed. (Failla,
supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1516.)
