Filed 5/18/15 P. v. Duran CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D067023
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF32341)
DAVID BARBA DURAN, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores,
Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Forest M. Wilkerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In May 2014, David Duran was convicted of a lewd act on a child (Pen. Code,
§ 288, subd. (a)). Duran was placed on probation on various terms and conditions. In
August 2014 the probation department filed a motion to revoke probation alleging that
Duran violated the condition to not have contact with the victim or her family.
In September 2014, Duran waived his right to trial and admitted violation of his
probation. Thereafter the court sentenced Duran to the upper term of eight years in
prison.
Duran filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable
issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as
mandated by Wende. We offered Duran the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal
but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to this appeal. As to the
probation revocation, Duran waived his trial rights and admitted he had violated
probation. Duran admitted he had been kicked out of his required program. He also
admitted he had contacted the victim's mother although he had been instructed by
probation not to do so.
At sentencing the trial court reviewed the original probation report and the
circumstances underlying the crime and Duran's criminal history. The court found the
sentencing factors in aggravation outweighed any mitigating factors and selected the
upper term for the offense.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has indicated he has been unable to identify
any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Pursuant to Anders v. California
2
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible, but not reasonably
arguable issue to assist the court in its review of the record:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term of
imprisonment?
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and
Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issue for
reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Duran on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McDONALD, J.
3