Filed 11/15/18 P. v. Trujillo CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GENE TRUJILLO II,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E070938
(Super.Ct.No. 16CR001523)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Debra Harris, Judge. Affirmed.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 1, 2016, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Gene Trujillo II (defendant) with making criminal threats, a felony, under Penal Code section 422, subdivision (a) (count 1); stalking, a felony, under Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (b) (count 2); injuring a spouse or cohabitant, a felony, under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) (count 3); possessing a controlled substance, a misdemeanor, under Health and Safety code section 11350 (count 4); and possessing marijuana, an infraction, under Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (b) (count 5).
On August 25, 2016, as part of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 3, injuring a spouse or cohabitant. Thereafter, the court dismissed the remaining charges and placed defendant on supervised probation for three years, subject to various terms and conditions.
On January 29, 2018, the People filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation. Among other things, the petition alleged defendant’s failure to report to his probation officer and to attend a required 52-week “batterer’s” program. On May 18, 2018, defendant denied the allegations in the petition. Following an evidentiary hearing under People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, on July 13, 2018, the trial court found the allegations in the petition to be true. The court then revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to the upper term of four years on count 3, less credits.
On July 17, 2018, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On July 18, 2018, the trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
B. FACTUAL HISTORY
At the Vickers hearing on July 13, 2018, Epifanio Santiago, an officer with the San Bernardino County Probation Department, testified that under the terms of defendant’s probation, defendant was required to notify his probation officer of his place of residence at least once a month. According to the records maintained by the department, on September 26, 2017, Probation Officer Hatchee conducted a home visit at defendant’s last reported address located on Petaluma Road. Officer Hatchee, however, was told by defendant’s mother and stepfather that defendant had been gone for the past three weeks and that he did not reside at that residence. The records also showed that defendant was required to report monthly to the probation department. Defendant last reported on October 16, 2017. The records also reflected that defendant was required to complete a “batterer’s” treatment program by June 2018; defendant had failed to do to, and he was terminated from the program. Furthermore, defendant failed to set up an account for the payment of his fines, as required under the terms of his probation.
On cross-examination, Officer Santiago conceded that although he was defendant’s probation officer, the officer had never met defendant. Officer Santiago had only spoken with defendant once on the telephone, while defendant was in custody. The officer also stated that he knew that defendant was the father of two children. If there were any problems that the mother of defendant’s children was causing that prevented defendant from complying with his probation terms, the officer would not know about it. The officer did not speak with the mother of defendant’s children, and he did not investigate defendant’s family situation.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. On September 21, counsel filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requested this court undertake a review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
