Filed 5/15/18 P. v. Townsend CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Calaveras)
----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WAYNE ERIC TOWNSEND,

Defendant and Appellant.


C082969

(Super. Ct. No. 15RP6480)



Appointed counsel for defendant Wayne Eric Townsend asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
Defendant was placed on postrelease community supervision on December 29, 2014 for violation of Penal Code section 417.8 [drawing or exhibiting a deadly weapon with intent to resist or prevent arrest or detention by a peace officer]. That supervision was due to terminate on March 14, 2018. On June 9, 2016, the Calaveras County Probation Department filed a petition to revoke defendant’s postrelease community supervision, alleging he failed to obey all laws by being publicly intoxicated (§ 647, subd. (f)), and failed to abstain from alcohol in violation of his probation conditions. On June 13, 2016, defendant was arraigned and appointed counsel. On June 17, 2016, an amended petition to revoke defendant’s postrelease community supervision was filed with the same allegations as the previous petition. Defendant was arraigned on the new petition and entered denials of the allegations.
At a hearing held on June 27, 2016, defendant admitted having consumed alcohol in violation of his probation conditions. Defendant’s trial counsel advised the trial court that the parties had negotiated reinstatement of supervision with a 100-day jail term. The trial court revoked and reinstated supervision with the added 100-day jail term and awarded defendant 40 days of presentence credit (20 actual days and 20 conduct days).
Defendant filed a motion to modify his sentence to reduce his jail term from 100 days to 60 days, and he filed a second motion requesting a hearing so that the trial court could clarify its order. The trial court denied both motions.
On August 1, 2016, the Calaveras County Probation Department filed a new petition to revoke defendant’s postrelease community supervision. The petition alleged defendant had failed to report to his probation officer as directed and had failed, since July 25, 2016, to have his electronic monitoring device active. Defendant was arraigned on the violations and appointed an attorney on August 16, 2016.
On August 26, 2016, a hearing was held to determine whether defendant violated the conditions of his supervision. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found that defendant was in violation of the terms of his postrelease community supervision. At a hearing held August 29, 2016, the trial court ordered defendant to serve a 90-day jail term and awarded him 30 days of presentence credit (15 actual days and 15 conduct days). Defendant appealed. Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
On September 7, 2016, defendant filed two motions to modify his sentence. In the first motion, he alleged that the curfew imposed as part of his sentence was illegal and unrelated to his crime. In the second motion, he alleged that the 90-day jail term was unlawful because an assessment pursuant to sections 3455 and 3000, along with California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3768, had not been ordered or conducted to determine what was appropriate. The trial court denied both motions. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and the trial court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
On September 14, 2016, defendant filed another motion to modify his sentence, this time requesting a reduction of the jail time from 90 days to 84 days. The trial court denied defendant’s motion. Defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief.
Defendant contends his due process rights were violated because probation failed to comply with sections 3454 and 3455, and California Rule of Court, rule 4.541, which require that a defendant be brought before the supervising county agency as part of a review process and further require that a petition to revoke postrelease community supervision include a statement of reasons why the supervising agency has determined that intermediate sanctions without court intervention is not appropriate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.541(e).) But the record does not show a due process violation.
The amended revocation petition, filed June 17, 2016, set forth defendant’s lengthy criminal history, the nature of his five previous violations of community supervision in this case, and the action taken (intermediate sanctions and/or court-imposed jail time). It explained that defendant had three prior intermediate sanctions, including a referral to a residential treatment program and two 10-day flash incarcerations, and had previously received services, including a substance abuse program and a cognitive behavior program. These services and sanctions had been ineffective and, thus, the supervising agency had determined continued intermediate sanctions would be ineffective. The revocation petition filed August 1, 2016 added that “[t]he current whereabouts of the defendant are unknown; therefore, intermediate sanctions are not available for this revocation.”
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/S/
MAURO, J.



We concur:



/S/
BLEASE, Acting P. J.



/S/
MURRAY, J.