Filed 10/5/16 P. v. Realmuto 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D069994
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE338577)
PETER R. REALMUTO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B.
Goldstein, Margaret A. Power and Daniel G. Lamborn, Judges. Affirmed.
Michelle Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Peter R. Realmuto pled guilty to driving while having a measureable
blood alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)) and admitted three prior driving under the
influence convictions within 10 years (Veh. Code, §§ 23626, 23550, subd. (a)). The
court suspended imposition of a prison sentence and granted appellant five years' formal
probation on condition he agree to several terms and conditions associated with driving
under the influence convictions and serve 149 days in custody. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd.
(h)(5)(A).)
On January 29, 2016, approximately one year after sentencing, appellant waived
an evidentiary hearing and admitted to violating probation. The court formally revoked
and reinstated probation on condition he serve 210 days' local custody with credit for 169
days served and accept two additional probation conditions, including that appellant not
associate with known drug users and offenders.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We sent
Realmuto notice that his attorney had filed a Wende brief and provided Realmuto with the
opportunity to file a supplemental brief. We did not receive a response from him. After
an independent review, we discern no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE1
In December 2012, appellant was stopped by CHP officers who observed him
driving at about 65 to 70 miles per hour and noted sparks and debris coming from the left
front tire area of his vehicle. Upon contacting appellant, they noted several symptoms
consistent with alcohol consumption including the smell of an alcoholic beverage, red
and watery eyes, the inability to provide intelligible answers to questions and difficulty
1 Because there was no preliminary hearing the facts are derived from the probation
report.
2
staying awake. The officers also noted damage to the front of appellant's vehicle.
Following a nonconsensual blood draw, appellant's blood alcohol content was determined
to be .16.
After pleading guilty and being placed on probation, appellant was arrested at his
home in January 2016 for violating the following terms and conditions of his probation:
possessing a controlled substance; driving while his license was suspended; and failing to
submit to drug testing when requested. Methamphetamine, marijuana and drug
paraphernalia were located at appellant's home when probation officers conducted
compliance checks. During those visits, officers noted that appellant's girlfriend, who
was in possession of marijuana and who had two active warrants (one for driving under
the influence and the other for being under the influence of drugs), was living at the
home.
Appellant waived an evidentiary hearing and admitted he was in violation of his
probation. At that hearing, the probation officer recommended probation be reinstated
and requested two additional conditions be added to appellant's probationary terms: obey
all laws and not associate with known drug users and offenders. The court followed these
recommendations and imposed additional time in custody.
At a follow-up hearing, appellant requested permission to travel to Missouri to
visit his critically ill mother and to continue to have contact with his girlfriend. The court
granted appellant's travel request but denied the request to exempt his girlfriend from the
probation condition prohibiting his contact with known drug users and offenders.
3
DISCUSSION
Counsel has identified the following issue that "might arguably support the
appeal" (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744): Whether "the trial court abuse[d] its
discretion in denying appellant's request to modify a probation condition prohibiting him
from associating with known drug users and offenders[.]" (Capitalization omitted.)
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders,
supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no
reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Realmuto on
this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
4