Filed 8/3/17 P. v. Morgan CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SAMMY DAVIS MORGAN,
Defendant and Appellant.

A150588

(Solano County
Super. Ct. No. FCR317734)


Sammy Davis Morgan appeals from an order finding him in violation of the terms of his Post Release Community Supervision. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant was convicted of felony assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and placed on Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) on April 11, 2015.
On December 14, 2016, PRCS was revoked based on an allegation that appellant violated the terms of his PRCS by possessing ammunition.
A hearing on the violation was held on January 3, 2017, with appellant represented by counsel. Senior Solano County Probation Officer Donald Kilfoyle testified that he supervised appellant on PRCS and that appellant lived at Florida Street in Vallejo, along with his fiancé, C.M. Before appellant’s release from custody, Kilfoyle had a conversation with C.M., in which they discussed appellant’s requirements for supervision and restrictions in regard to weapons. C.M. stated that she had a rifle and two bows she inherited from her father, and asked whether they could remain in the house. Kilfoyle told C.M. to lock them up so appellant could not access them, or remove them from the home.
Vallejo Police Officer Matthew Samida testified that he conducted a PRCS compliance check on appellant’s Florida Street residence on December 1, 2016. Appellant and C.M. were present. In a bedroom that appellant identified as his, there was a two-drawer dresser containing male and female clothing in both drawers and a written medication prescription in appellant’s name in the upper drawer. In the lower drawer was an unlocked box containing two handgun magazines: one for a Glock 9 handgun, which was empty, and one for an unidentified handgun containing nine rounds. After being arrested for possession of the ammunition and read his “Miranda Rights,” appellant told Samida that he and C.M. lived in a bad part of town and had to protect themselves.
On appellant’s behalf, C.M. testified that she was the lessee at the Florida Street residence. She had lived there for five years, and appellant moved in during January 2016. After she spoke with appellant’s probation officer about the weapons she had inherited from her father, she removed the bows and rifle from the property. C.M. claimed that she had also inherited the ammunition found in the dresser and intended to dispose of it, but she forgot it was in the dresser. She never told appellant about the ammunition, and she thought she had disposed of all prohibited items before appellant moved into the house. C.M. claimed she did not tell the police that the ammunition belonged to her because she was afraid. The following Monday, she told appellant’s probation officer that the ammunition was hers.
On rebuttal, Officer Samida testified that he interviewed C.M. on video. He asked her who the ammunition belonged to, and she told Samida it belonged to appellant and she denied knowing it was present.
The court found appellant in violation of his PRCS, concluding that he had knowledge of the existence of the ammunition. The court reinstated PRCS on the same terms and conditions, with the added condition that he serve 68 days in custody with credit for 68 days.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant’s appellate counsel has averred in the opening brief in this appeal that he advised appellant of the filing of a Wende brief, provided him a copy of the brief, and advised him of his right to file, within 30 days, a supplemental brief raising any issues he wanted to call to the court’s attention. We have not received any supplemental brief from appellant.
We find no arguable issues on appeal. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
III. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.



NEEDHAM, J.



We concur.




JONES, P.J.




BRUINIERS, J.