Filed 3/1/18 P. v. Garcia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

RICHARD ANGEL GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068835

(Super.Ct.No. FVI1404177)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Corey G. Lee, Judge. Affirmed.
Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Richard Angel Garcia was charged with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4), count 1.) Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled no contest. The trial court withheld pronouncement of judgment and placed defendant on probation for three years. He violated his probation several times before the court terminated probation and sentenced him to the midterm of three years in state prison.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant stipulated to the police report containing a factual basis for the plea. The police report shows that defendant attacked two victims in their backyard with a broomstick.
Defendant pled no contest to one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. (§ 245, subd. (a)(4).) The court placed him on probation for a period of three years, under specified conditions, including that he report to the probation officer immediately, and then once every 14 days, or as directed, and that he serve time in county jail.
On April 9, 2015, the court held a hearing and noted that defendant failed to appear to be booked. The court revoked his probation and issued a bench warrant.
On April 28, 2015, defendant appeared in custody, and the court ordered him to appear at a probation revocation hearing on June 4, 2015. On June 4, 2015, defendant admitted that he was in violation of probation. The court reinstated his probation.
On May 16, 2016, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of probation, alleging that defendant was arrested on three different occasions for disorderly conduct. (§ 647, subd. (f).) The court held a hearing on June 16, 2016, and defendant admitted the probation violation. The court revoked his probation and sentenced him to the midterm of three years, but then suspended the sentence and reinstated his probation.
On February 24, 2017, the probation department filed another petition for revocation of probation, alleging that defendant was arrested for shoplifting (§ 459.5) and he failed to report to the probation department as directed.
The court held a hearing on May 4, 2017. Defendant said he did not know what the alleged violation of probation was, since his “paperwork” did not tell him. Although the court explained the violations to him, he kept insisting that he did not understand his violations. The court then declared a doubt as to his mental competency, appointed two doctors to evaluate him, and suspended the criminal proceedings.
On June 8, 2017, the court reinstated the proceedings, upon the doctors’ findings that defendant was competent.
On July 27, 2017, the court held a probation violation hearing. A probation officer testified that defendant was required to report to the probation department weekly. He reported for approximately one year and then stopped reporting after that. The last time he reported was October 17, 2016. The court found defendant in violation of his probation, ordered that his probation remain revoked, and imposed the previously suspended sentence of three years. The court granted him 774 days of custody credits.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and one potential arguable issue: whether defendant willfully violated the conditions of his probation. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:

MILLER
J.

SLOUGH
J.