legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Nuno

P. v. Nuno
08:16:2012





P






P. v. Nuno

















Filed 7/30/12
P. v. Nuno CA2/1

>

>

>

>

>

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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




>






THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



JOSEPH MICHAEL NUNO,



Defendant and Appellant.




B238009



(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. YA076847)






APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County. James R. Brandlin,
Judge. Affirmed.

______

Galia Amram
Phillips, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.

No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______











An information, dated June 9, 2010, charged Joseph
Michael Nuno with two counts: (1)
meeting a person he believed to be a minor for lewd purposes (Pen. Code,
§ 288.4, subd. (b))href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1];
and (2) possessing matter depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct (§
311.11, subd. (a)). According to the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">preliminary hearing transcript, Nuno
communicated with an undercover police detective, whom he believed to be a 14‑year‑old
girl, in a chat room for more than a month, arranged to meet her and came to
the meeting place. A consensual search
of Nuno’s computer and cellular telephone revealed sexually explicit content
and images of underage girls, which the detective believed to constitute child
pornography. On December 21, 2010, Nuno
pleaded no contest to the charge under section 288.4, subdivision (b). On February 16, 2011, the trial court
dismissed the remaining count, suspended imposition of sentence and placed Nuno
on formal probation for five years. As
conditions of probation, the court directed that Nuno serve one year in the
county jail and upon release to maintain residence as approved by his probation
officer and to keep his probation officer advised of his residence at all
times.

After
Nuno’s release from jail in early August 2011, Nuno’s probation officer filed a
report with the trial court on August 26, indicating that Nuno had been
arrested on August 23 based on the appearance that he had violated probation by
providing the probation officer with certain addresses but staying at a
different location. The probation
officer requested four weeks to investigate the apparent violations and make
recommendations. That same day, the
court preliminarily found Nuno in violation of probation, revoked
probation, remanded Nuno to custody and set a hearing on September 12 for the
probation officer to file a supplemental report. After receiving the supplemental report, the
court set a formal probation violation hearing for September 27.

According
to the evidence at the probation violation hearing, which took place on
September 27, October 21 and November 10, Nuno met with his probation officer
on August 9 after his release from jail and told her that he was residing on
Hackett Avenue in Long Beach as of that date, having just moved from East
Conant Street in Long Beach. Nuno
registered as a sex offender in Long Beach.
The probation officer provided Nuno with conditions of probation and
asked him to return on August 16 with proof of residence and a living
arrangement statement.

On August 16,
Nuno returned, informing his probation officer that he no longer could reside
at the Hackett Avenue residence, he was now a transient and his church members
were deciding where he should stay. The
probation officer directed Nuno to go to the Long Beach Police Department
and register as a sex offender as a transient.
She granted Nuno’s request to leave Los Angeles County and go to
Cypress in Orange County from August 17 to 22.
She asked him to register there as a sex offender and directed him to
meet with her on August 24. From August
19 to 22, Nuno left numerous messages for the probation officer, either before
or after work hours, telling her that he did not go to Cypress but instead was
staying at the Hackett Avenue residence.
Nuno reported that his church members were going to take him to Cypress
on the evening of August 22 or the morning of August 23. The probation officer attempted to reach
Nuno, but he did not answer his telephone or return her call, so she left a
message advising him that he could not go to Cypress outside the time period
for which she had granted permission.

On August
23, Nuno’s probation officer received a telephone call from an officer of the
Los Alamitos Police Department, informing her that Nuno had come into the
department, which is in Orange County, to register as a sex offender. Nuno told the officer in Los Alamitos that he
had stayed at the Don Turf Motel in that city the previous night and would
reside there. The officer called the
manager of the Don Turf Motel, who reported that Nuno had registered and
begun to stay at her motel on August 6 and was paid through September 4. She saw him there on about four
occasions. Nuno’s room was 20 to 25
yards from and overlooked the pool area, where an officer observed children
present. Nuno never mentioned the motel
to his probation officer. Nuno was taken
into custody.

On August
24, Nuno met with his probation officer.
She asked him why he had given her false information by telling her that
he was in Long Beach, yet staying in Los Alamitos. Nuno replied that he had no excuse. After Nuno’s arrest, the motel manager found
magazines in Nuno’s room with “dirty pictures of women” and small photographs
of children appearing like school pictures.
An officer retrieved the materials, which included sexually explicit
photographs of women and girls, some of whom identified themselves as teenagers
and appeared to be seeking an agent. The
officer had concerns about Nuno’s staying at the Don Turf Motel because
parolees come to the motel on a frequent basis and it is close to schools and
parks. Nuno acknowledged to his
probation officer that he had videos, photographs and magazines in his motel
room but said they were part of his work as a production agent for which he was
involved with casting agencies.

The pastor
of Nuno’s church, testifying on Nuno’s behalf, said that he was aware that Nuno
had been convicted of a sexual offense and that after Nuno’s release from jail
he had helped Nuno get a room at the Don Turf Motel and pay for it through
church funds. The pastor confirmed that
Nuno had stayed at the hotel for a couple weeks. He was not aware that Nuno had failed to
inform his probation officer that he was residing at the motel. Nuno told the pastor that his conviction was
based on pictures that a girl had sent him of herself naked, that he did not
delete the pictures from his cellular telephone and that the girl was underage
and related to a police officer. Nuno
did not tell the pastor that he had been communicating about sex with someone
he believed to be a 14-year-old girl and went to meet her or that he had
photographs and videos of minor girls on his computer and cellular
telephone. The pastor acknowledged that
comparing the details of Nuno’s conviction to the information Nuno had given
him caused him to believe “there might be some issues” with Nuno’s ability to
tell the truth. A church member
testified that Nuno had admitted to being convicted of a sexual offense, that
Nuno had a medical condition requiring treatment and that he had picked Nuno up
from his residence at the Don Turf Motel.
Other church members knew of Nuno’s medical condition, and one helped
him register as a sex offender in Long Beach.
Nuno also told this church member that his conviction was based on
pictures a girl had sent to his cellular telephone.

Based on
the evidence, the trial court found that Nuno had violated probation by
“us[ing] subterfuge to hide his location and his whereabouts from his probation
officer.” The court revoked probation and sentenced Nuno to state prison for
the low term of two years for the violation of section 288.4, subdivision
(b). Nuno filed a notice of appeal.

We
appointed counsel to represent Nuno 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 May
14, 2012, we directed appointed counsel to immediately send the record on this
appeal and a copy of the opening brief
to Nuno and notified Nuno that within 30 days from the date of the notice
he could submit by letter or brief any ground of appeal, contention or argument
he wished us to consider. We did not
receive a response.

We
have examined the entire record and determined that substantial evidence
supports the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. We may not reweigh that evidence. We are satisfied that Nuno’s attorney has
fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable appellate
issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)


DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED.








ROTHSCHILD,
J.

We concur:







MALLANO,
P. J. JOHNSON,
J.





id=ftn1>

href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Statutory references are to the Penal
Code.








Description
An information, dated June 9, 2010, charged Joseph Michael Nuno with two counts: (1) meeting a person he believed to be a minor for lewd purposes (Pen. Code, § 288.4, subd. (b))[1]; and (2) possessing matter depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct (§ 311.11, subd. (a)). According to the preliminary hearing transcript, Nuno communicated with an undercover police detective, whom he believed to be a 14‑year‑old girl, in a chat room for more than a month, arranged to meet her and came to the meeting place. A consensual search of Nuno’s computer and cellular telephone revealed sexually explicit content and images of underage girls, which the detective believed to constitute child pornography. On December 21, 2010, Nuno pleaded no contest to the charge under section 288.4, subdivision (b). On February 16, 2011, the trial court dismissed the remaining count, suspended imposition of sentence and placed Nuno on formal probation for five years. As conditions of probation, the court directed that Nuno serve one year in the county jail and upon release to maintain residence as approved by his probation officer and to keep his probation officer advised of his residence at all times.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale