Filed 4/20/21 P. v. Rogers CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge.

Maureen M. Bodo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for appellant Willie James Rogers asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Rogers was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. This court did not receive a supplemental brief from Rogers. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Rogers, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On April 10, 2018, a deputy with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department responded to a report of a domestic violence dispute. Rogers’s former live-in girlfriend, Lacey W., had a restraining order against Rogers, but he had arrived at her apartment on the previous night and refused to leave. A physical altercation ensued, during which Rogers bit Lacey W.’s neck and leg multiple times, backhanded her, and kicked her thigh. Lacey W. bit Rogers on the shoulder. Following the altercation, Rogers fled the victim’s home. Rogers was arrested one week later.

On May 2, 2018, the Kern County District Attorney’s Office filed an information, charging Rogers with one count of domestic violence (Pen. Code,[1] § 273.5, subd. (a)) and one count of violation of a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)). As to count 1, the complaint further alleged the offense had occurred within seven years of a previous domestic violence conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1)) in case No. BF165640.

On July 11, 2018, Rogers pleaded guilty to domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). In view of his plea, count 2 and the section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1) enhancement allegation were dismissed by the People.

On August 7, 2018, the trial court sentenced Rogers to a term of three years of formal probation and one year in county jail, to run concurrent with case No. BF165640A. In case No. BF165640A, Rogers had suffered a conviction for domestic violence (§ 273.5) in 2016 against the same victim. One of the terms of Rogers’s probation prohibited him from contacting Lacey W. or her family.

On December 17, 2018, Rogers requested a modification of the terms of his probation to allow contact with Lacey W. Lacey W. joined in his request.

On December 20, 2018, the court granted the motion. The stay-away order was removed from the terms of Rogers’s probation.

On May 15, 2019, the probation department requested revocation of Rogers’s probation for domestic battery against Lacey W. (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)) and robbery of an inhabited dwelling house (§ 212.5). Rogers had also allegedly harassed, threatened, or stalked Lacey W. The trial court revoked Rogers’s probation.

On September 5, 2019, following a formal revocation hearing, the trial court determined that Rogers had violated the terms of his probation and sentenced him to a prison term of four years in case No. BF171965A, and to a term of three years, to run concurrently, in case No. BF165640A.

On March 5, 2020, Rogers filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Following our independent review of the record, we find no arguable error on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to Rogers.

On August 31, 2020, this court received a supplemental letter from Rogers notifying the court of his change of address and indicating he “would still like to file [his] appeal.” This court did not receive a supplemental brief from Rogers. However, in his supplemental letter, Rogers raises several issues. First, he claims he did not commit the crime for which he was sentenced. Rogers points to the fact that the victim did not actually see him commit the crime. Second, he claims exculpatory evidence or information was withheld during the hearing on his probation violation. He does not identify what evidence or information was allegedly withheld from disclosure. Finally, he claims his underlying case was dismissed by the court, but the court nonetheless determined he had violated his probation. Rogers also attached a letter Lacey W. had allegedly written to him while he was in prison. He does not direct this court to any legal authority which would permit us to consider evidence outside of the record on appeal, nor does he explain the significance of the letter. (See In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634, 646 [an appeal is “limited to the four corners of the record on appeal”].)

Rogers’s claims of error were not raised in a brief that conforms with appellate rules, nor were his claims supported by citation to the record or legal authority. (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 363-364 [“[i]f a party’s briefs do not provide legal argument and citation to authority on each point raised, ‘ “the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration” ’ ”].) We have nonetheless considered his assertions in our review but find them unsupported by the record.

DISPOSITION

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.

[1] All undefined statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.