Opinion
E070286
08-07-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JIMMIE SHELBY TAYLOR, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.No. BAR1800147) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith Fouladi, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
The court found true an allegation that defendant and appellant, Jimmie Shelby Taylor, Jr., had violated a term of his Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) and ordered defendant to serve 180 days in jail. After defendant's counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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, setting forth a statement of the case and requesting that we independently review the record for potential error. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 13, 2013, defendant was convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a)). The court found true allegations defendant has suffered two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) The court sentenced defendant to four years eight months in state prison. On June 2, 2015, defendant was released on PRCS.
On January 25, 2018, probation filed a petition for revocation of defendant's PRCS. Since defendant's initial release and the filing of the petition, defendant had been found to have violated the terms of his PRCS eight times for which he had been ordered to serve varying lengths in custody.
On December 21, 2017, the court had ordered defendant to be transported from the Riverside County jail to Mental Health-Emergency Treatment Services (ETS). Defendant was released from jail on December 22, 2017.
On December 21, 2017, the court dismissed a petition against defendant, but ordered him transferred to ETS. Defendant was not present when the court issued the order. Defendant's probation officer testified it was strange that the sheriff's department released defendant instead of transferring him to ETS. --------
On January 5, 2018, defendant's probation officer contacted ETS to obtain an update; ETS personnel informed the probation officer they had no record of defendant being admitted to the facility. On January 11, 2018, defendant's probation officer attempted to contact defendant at the address he last provided when arrested; a tenant therein informed the probation officer defendant did not reside at that address. Probation maintained defendant's whereabouts were unknown. The court preliminarily revoked defendant's PRCS and issued a bench warrant.
The court arraigned defendant on the petition on February 22, 2018. At the hearing on the petition on March 16, 2018, the court clarified that the allegation in the petition was that defendant had failed to report to probation within two days of his release from jail. A probation officer testified a condition of defendant's PRCS required him to report to his probation officer with two days of his release from custody. Defendant signed and acknowledged the conditions of his release. Defendant's probation officer testified he informed defendant personally that any time he was released from custody, he was required to report to probation within two days.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. 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 arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: SLOUGH
J. FIELDS
J.