People v. Montano CA2/4 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 2/18/22 P. v. Montano CA2/4
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
    publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                          B312690
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. 1PH00353)
    v.
    EDUARDO ANTONIO MONTANO,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Robert M. Kawahara, Commissioner.
    Affirmed.
    Eduardo Antonio Montano, in pro. per.; Heather E.
    Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
    for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    BACKGROUND
    In September 2020, as a condition of parole, appellant
    Eduardo Antonio Montano agreed not to “engage in conduct
    prohibited by law.” In January 2021, appellant was taken
    into custody for making criminal threats in violation of
    Penal Code section 422. Eight days later, the Division of
    Adult Parole Operations filed a Petition for Revocation,
    seeking to revoke appellant’s parole for making criminal
    threats. In February 2021, the trial court found him in
    violation of his parole, and sentenced him to 180 days in jail,
    with 80 days credit. Appellant timely appealed.
    Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief raising no
    issues and invoking People v. Serrano (2012) 
    211 Cal.App.4th 496
    . Under Serrano, when appointed counsel
    raises no issue in an appeal from a post-judgment proceeding
    following a first appeal as of right, an appellate court need
    not independently review the record. (Id. at 498.) On
    September 29, 2021, we directed counsel to send the record
    and a copy of the brief to appellant, and notified appellant of
    his right to respond within 30 days. We received no
    response within that time period, but on December 2, 2021,
    we received a “Motion and Declaration of Good Cause for
    Extension of Time to File a Brief” and a “Defendant and
    Appellate Brief.” We grant appellant’s late-filed request for
    an extension, and will consider his supplemental brief.
    Having done so, we affirm.
    2
    APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
    First, appellant argues that at his arraignment, the
    court ignored his claim of “being a victim of torture while
    incarcerated.” Appellant provides no evidence that he was a
    “victim of torture” and, in any case, “[t]he purpose of an
    arraignment . . . is to inform the accused of the charge
    against him and to give him fairly the opportunity to plead
    to it.” (In re Mitchell (1961) 
    56 Cal.2d 667
    , 670, citing Pen.
    Code, § 988.) It is not to respond to an appellant’s claims of
    mistreatment while incarcerated.1
    Second, appellant contends the court erred in
    permitting Officer Austin Kook to testify at the probable
    cause hearing because Officer Kook had “only two years of
    police experience [and was] therefore unqualified to
    establish probable cause to revoke [appellant’s] parole.”
    Appellant has forfeited this argument both by failing to
    object to Officer Kook’s qualifications either before or during
    his testimony, and by failing to support his argument with
    legal authority. (Evid. Code, § 353 [“A verdict or finding
    shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision
    based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous
    admission of evidence unless: [¶] (a) There appears of record
    an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the
    evidence that was timely made and so stated as to make
    clear the specific ground of the objection or motion”]; WFG
    1    We note additionally that the “torture” appellant claimed
    apparently consisted of “being held here for something I didn’t
    do.”
    3
    National Title Ins. Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2020) 
    51 Cal.App.5th 881
    , 894 [“we may disregard conclusory
    arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal
    authority”].)
    Finally, appellant argues the court erred because “the
    illegal broadcasting of oral communications holding the court
    hostage as a 3rd party not showing in the court reporters
    transcripts. Outrageous police misconduct. [sic]” To the
    extent we understand this argument, appellant appears to
    contend that “oral communications” were being broadcast
    during one of his court hearings, but this fact was not
    reflected in the Reporter’s Transcript. We reject this
    argument both because there is no evidence of his
    contentions, and because appellant has failed to articulate
    what prejudice he suffered from these alleged broadcasts.
    (See, e.g., F.P. v. Monier (2017) 
    3 Cal.5th 1099
    , 1107-1108
    [California Constitution expressly precludes reversal absent
    prejudice].)
    Appellant fails to raise any arguable contention that
    the trial court erred. (See People v. Hertz (1980) 
    103 Cal.App.3d 770
    , 780 [appellant has affirmative duty to show
    error].)
    4
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    MANELLA, P. J.
    We concur:
    WILLHITE, J.
    CURREY, J.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B312690

Filed Date: 2/18/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/22/2022