Filed 10/17/18 P. v. Gramshoward CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Edward Hall, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Renee Paradis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant appeals from a postjudgment order finding that he violated the terms of his parole, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Following her analysis of potential appellate issues, appointed counsel informed us in her declaration that she consulted with a staff attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel then filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In that brief, counsel declined to identify potential appellate issues as suggested in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Instead, she invited this court to conduct its required review of the record “unfettered by counsel’s prior thought processes.” We have now done exactly that.

Counsel in her brief and attached declaration has not argued against her client but advised the court she was unable to find any issue to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, but he has not done so.

We have examined the entire record, including documents filed under seal by the court, and, like counsel, have not found an arguable issue on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the postjudgment order.

FACTS

Following his release from prison in October 2014, defendant, a registered sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290, was placed on parole for three years. Thereafter, he dealt with a series of alleged parole violations which resulted in additional custody commitments.

In September 2017, a new revocation petition was filed against defendant alleging five parole violations: (1) willful removal of his GPS tracking device; (2) failure to charge the GPS device as required; (3) being under the influence of a controlled substance; (4) failure to participate in narcotic testing as required; and (5) failure to attend required sex offender therapy. At his arraignment on that petition, defendant elected to represent himself and appropriate written and oral waivers of his right to counsel were taken by the court pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806. He then denied all of the allegations contained in the petition.

On November 1, 2017, a contested parole violation hearing was held. The People called a single witness, defendant’s parole officer. Defendant called two witnesses, a different parole officer and the defendant’s mother. All witnesses underwent cross-examination. At the end of the hearing, after considering argument, the court found that defendant had committed four of the five alleged violations. The court found the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that defendant had failed to charge his GPS device as required. As a result, defendant was returned to parole and ordered to serve 180 days in custody, with credit given for 44 days already served and 44 conduct credits. Thereafter, the court appointed the Public Defender to assist defendant with his appeal, and a timely notice of appeal was filed.

DISCUSSION

Following our usual standard of review on appeal, we recite the facts “in the light most favorable to the judgment . . .” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578). A recitation of facts concerning defendant’s underlying offense is not included here, as they are irrelevant to the current appeal, which focuses only on events related to parole violation proceedings that occurred after defendant had served his initial prison sentence.

Following the Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and the entire appellate record, including nine envelopes containing records sealed by the court between January 16, 2015 and September 27, 2017. None of those sealed records contained information relevant to the current appeal.

As set forth above, counsel in her briefing directed our attention to no potential appellate issues. Our own review of the record has likewise revealed none. Defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary and intelligent. His revocation hearing was a model of propriety. Defendant’s sentence, including the sentencing credits he received, was appropriate.

Applying the applicable standards of review, we find no impropriety with respect to any aspect of these revocation proceedings. Our review of the entire record has disclosed no issue reasonably arguable on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment order is affirmed.

GOETHALS, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

IKOLA, J.