People v. Cruz CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 1/21/25 P. v. Cruz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E083958 & E083959

v. (Super.Ct.Nos. SWF2007520 & SWF2100159) LUIS CANONIZADO CRUZ III, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John M. Monterosso,

Judge. Affirmed.

Jo Pastore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 In this Anders/Wende matter,1 defendant and appellant Luis Canonizado Cruz III

appeals from the trial court’s probation violation finding. Our independent review under

those authorities discloses no issue of arguable merit on which to request briefing by the

parties. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [“an arguable issue”

requires “a reasonable potential for success” on appeal].) We therefore affirm the trial

court’s ruling.

BACKGROUND AND OUR REVIEW

In September 2020, a felony complaint in case No. SWF2007520 alleged

defendant committed possession-for-sale offenses involving heroin (count 1, Health &

Saf. Code, § 11351) and methamphetamine (count 2, Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), both

while armed with a shotgun (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)). Less than a year later, in

February 2021, an additional three-count felony complaint in case No. SWF2100159

alleged violations for possession for sale of a controlled substance (Alprazolam);

possession of drug paraphernalia; and possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf.

Code, §§ 1137, subd. (b)(1); 11364, subd. (a); 11377, subd. (a).) The latter complaint

included an allegation that defendant committed the offenses while released on bail.

(Pen. Code, § 12022.1.)

Defendant negotiated a plea and, on July 20, 2022, pled guilty to the first count in

each complaint and admitted the respective allegations as to those counts, with the

remaining charges dismissed in both cases. Pursuant to his plea, defendant obtained a

1 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

2 combined suspended sentence of five years eight months, pending successful completion

of 24 months on formal probation. His relevant probation conditions included that he

violate no laws and, as he expressly agreed, that he complete a six-month residential

treatment program.

The probation department filed a complaint in March 2024 alleging defendant

violated probation by failing to complete the required treatment program, despite leaving

a voicemail with his probation officer in August 2022 verifying he would do so. The trial

court heard testimony and made various findings, including that the probation department

specifically directed defendant to enroll in a treatment program within 40 days of a

meeting on January 24, 2023. Further, while defendant was remanded to custody on a

different matter nine months later in late September 2023, remaining there until his

revocation hearing, defendant did not enroll in a treatment program when he had

opportunities to do so, despite being provided resources by the department. The court

revoked defendant’s probation and lifted the stay on execution of his custody term.

Defendant appealed and appointed appellate counsel filed the no-issue brief as

noted, after consulting with Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel suggests generically as a

potential issue for our review whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking

probation and requiring defendant to serve the agreed term.

Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently

reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has

fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Id. at

p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

3 DISPOSITION

The trial court’s probation revocation decision is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

RAPHAEL J.