Filed 4/7/25 P. v. Yacoub CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B337177 (Super. Ct. No. MA080850) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County) v. DANIEL YACOUB, Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel Yacoub appeals from the judgment after he pleaded no contest to one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11351.) In January 2022, Yacoub was charged with three counts of possession for sale of a controlled substance (§11378 (count 1); § 11351 (counts 2-3).) He pleaded no contest to one count (count 2) and admitted two aggravating factors—that his prior convictions as an adult were numerous and of increasing seriousness and that he served a

1 Further unspecified references are to the Health and Safety Code. prior prison term or county jail term. Counsel stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript and police report as the factual basis for the plea. Pursuant to the plea, the court dismissed the remaining counts. Yacoub was sentenced to the upper term of four years in county jail with execution of sentence suspended and granted two years of formal probation. The terms of his probation required him to not own, use, possess, buy, or sell any controlled substances or associated paraphernalia, except with a valid prescription, and to not associate with persons known to be users or sellers of controlled substances.

In August 2023, Yacoub was arrested for possession for sale of a controlled substance (§§ 11351 & 11378) during a traffic stop.

He was the front passenger of a vehicle that was registered to him. In a subsequent search, the police found what they believed to be various controlled substances including methamphetamine and fentanyl, narcotics paraphernalia, and indicia of sales including a digital scale, glass vials, and cash.

In January 2024, the trial court held a contested probation violation hearing. The court found that Yacoub was “at a minimum, in constructive possession of controlled substances, narcotics paraphernalia, and indicia of sales” and that he was associating with drug users or sellers. The court additionally found that Yacoub failed to do outpatient treatment. The court found Yacoub violated probation. His probation was revoked and terminated, and he was sentenced to the previously suspended four years in county jail for count 2.

We appointed counsel to represent Yacoub in this appeal.

After counsel’s examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On January 7, 2025, we advised Yacoub that he had 30 days within which to personally submit

any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with their responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

CODY, J.

Lisa M. Strassner, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________ Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.