People v. Yoo CA2/7

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Yoo on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On May 15, 2014, we advised Yoo he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response. We have examined the record and are satisfied Yoo’s appellate attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) However, the trial court erred in imposing and staying both a parole revocation and probation revocation fine. (See People v. Hunt (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 13.)

Statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to reverse the order imposing and staying a parole revocation fine. As modified the judgment is affirmed.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

WOODS, Acting P. J.

SEGAL, J.

 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3