Opinion
D070655
03-07-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL BAUER, Defendant and Appellant.
Theresa Osterman Stevenson for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. PLAH6893 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Margie G. Woods, Judge. Affirmed. Theresa Osterman Stevenson for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In December 2010, Michael Bauer pleaded guilty to lewd conduct involving a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). He was placed on five-years formal probation. In March 2011, Bauer's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to prison. In July 2015, Bauer was released from prison and placed on parole.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Three parole revocations have occurred since March 2015. The first revocation occurred in February 2016.
The second revocation occurred in April 2016. Parole was revoked for failure to comply with the polygraph requirements of his parole.
The third revocation proceeding was commenced in May 2016. Bauer was permitted to represent himself. In July 2016, Bauer admitted the alleged violation of parole.
During one of the status conferences for the third revocation, Bauer made a verbal request to withdraw his admission in the second revocation proceeding, which had already concluded. The court denied the oral motion.
Bauer filed a timely notice of appeal, which was later amended to appeal from the judgment entered after the third revocation proceeding.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Bauer the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
Since all of the revocations were based on admissions, the facts of the various parole revocation proceedings are not important to the resolution of this appeal. Thus, we omit the traditional statement of facts. --------
DISCUSSION
As we have indicated, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and has asked this court to review the record for error. In order to assist this court in its review and to comply with the requirements of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Bauer's motion to vacate his admission in the second revocation proceeding.
2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to vacate the admission in the second revocation proceeding on the grounds the polygraph requirement of parole violated Bauer's Fifth Amendment rights.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
BENKE, Acting P. J. /s/_________
IRION, J.