Filed 5/31/22 P. v. Rodriguez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kawika Smith, Judge. Affirmed.

James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Robert Daniel Rodriguez appeals from an order revoking his post release community supervision (PRCS) and sentence of 150 days in county jail. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2019, defendant was convicted of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and was sentenced to two years in state prison. On April 13, 2020, defendant was released from prison to community supervision under various terms and conditions of supervision.

On July 28, 2020, defendant reported to the San Bernardino County Probation Department for an orientation and assessment. At that time, the probation officer reviewed the terms and conditions of supervision with defendant. In August 2021, defendant initialed and signed a document containing his PRCS terms and conditions and acknowledged that he understood those terms.

Defendant subsequently violated several terms and conditions of his PRCS by failing to cooperate with his probation officer (term 4), failing to keep his probation officer informed of his place of residence and cohabitants (term 8), and failing to permit visits and searches of his places of residence (term 22). As a result, on November 1, 2021, the San Bernardino County Probation Department filed a petition to revoke defendant’s PRCS.

A contested revocation hearing was held on December 15, 2021. San Bernardino County Probation Officer Cochrell testified that he was assigned to supervise defendant, and that on July 28, 2020, defendant had reported to the probation office in Victorville for an orientation and assessment. After defendant had violated his PRCS, on August 26, 2021, Cochrell reviewed the terms and conditions of supervision with defendant, and defendant signed a document of his terms and conditions. Term 8 required defendant to keep the probation officer informed of his place of residence. Defendant had initially reported that he was residing at his previously reported address on Kirkwood Avenue. However, after the probation officer questioned defendant about his address, he claimed that he was homeless. Cochrell thereafter placed a GPS monitor on defendant. Using Veritrax software, Cochrell was able to monitor defendant’s whereabouts as the program kept track of defendant’s specific locations. A printout of the GPS monitoring from August 26 to October 28, 2021 showed that defendant was present nearly every night at an address on Hughes Road. However, throughout the monitoring period, defendant repeatedly claimed that he was homeless, and whenever Cochrell asked him if the Hughes address was his residence, defendant denied residing at that address. Term 8 also required defendant to report any individuals he cohabited with, but he never reported cohabiting with anyone. Defendant was arrested for violating his PRCS on October 28, 2021, after he refused to complete a change of address form and insisted that he was homeless, despite the GPS monitoring showing otherwise.

Following oral argument by the parties, the trial court found true that defendant violated term 4 (cooperate with probation officer) and term 8 (keep probation apprised of residence and cohabitants), but not true term 22 (permit searches of residence). The court thereafter reinstated defendant on PRCS on the same terms and conditions and ordered defendant to serve 150 days in county jail with credit for time served. Defendant timely appealed.

III.

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

IV.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

MILLER

J.