People v. Clark

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON ALLAN CLARK, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Yolo

Date published: Oct 5, 2023

No. C097501 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2023)

Opinion

C097501

10-05-2023

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON ALLAN CLARK, Defendant and Appellant.

HULL, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Super. Ct. No. CS202259)

HULL, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Allen Clark filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

In July 2020, defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code sections 29800, subdivision (a)(1), 22210, and Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). He was released on post-release community supervision in August 2020. His supervision was scheduled to expire in January 2024.

Defendant repeatedly violated the terms of his release. In November 2022, the probation department filed a petition for revocation alleging three violations of the condition of his release: 1) failing to submit to a search; 2) failing to abstain from possession of illegal drugs; and 3) threatening, harassing, or annoying a protected person. The trial court summarily revoked supervision and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the first two allegations true. The trial court sentenced defendant to 120 days in jail, and awarded him 37 days of presentence credits. Defendant timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: EARL, P. J. ROBIE, J.