People v. Jauregui CA4/1

Filed 5/8/26 P. v. Jauregui 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086129 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD287671) CHRISTOPHER ANDREW JAUREGUI, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.

Ryan Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Christopher Andrew Jauregui pleaded guilty to sale of cocaine and admitted the total weight of the cocaine exceeded four kilograms. (Health and Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a) & 11370.4 subd. (a)(2)). Jauregui was sentenced to 10 years of local custody under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(b) with five years to be served in custody and five years on mandatory supervision.

Jauregui was released from local custody in July 2020, rearrested in December 2021, placed under mandatory supervision on April 5, 2024, and rearrested in February 2025.

After being placed under mandatory supervision, Jauregui had several violations of the terms of his release. In April 2025, after Jauregui admitted violating the terms of his release, he was returned to jail for the remaining days of custody.

Jauregui filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Jauregui the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

DISCUSSION As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the possible merits of this appeal: whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating appellant’s mandatory supervision.

We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Jauregui in this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.