Opinion
E073787
03-03-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON BRANDON WATSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Aaron Brandon Watson, in pro. per., and Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.No. 19CJ001063) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David A. Williams, Judge. Affirmed. Aaron Brandon Watson, in pro. per., and Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Aaron Brandon Watson pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and maintaining a place for the use of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366). Hee admitted to having served two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). (See People v. Watson (Jan. 6, 2016, E061781) [nonpub. opn.].) A trial court sentenced him to five years eight months in state prison on August 6, 2014. On January 11, 2017, he was released on postrelease community supervision (PRCS) on specified terms.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our prior unpublished opinion in this case. --------
Defendant now appeals from the judgment entered after the court found him in violation of the terms of his PRCS, sentenced him to 180 days in county prison with 140 days of credit, and reinstated him on PRCS. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was sentenced to five years eight months in state prison on August 6, 2014. On January 11, 2017, he was released on PRCS on specified terms.
On May 9, 2019, the San Bernardino County Probation Department filed a petition to revoke defendant's PRCS, alleging that he violated the terms requiring him to "cooperate with the probation officer in a plan of rehabilitation and follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer," and "submit to continuous electronic monitoring, Global Positioning System [GPS], or other device as directed by [his] Probation Officer." The petition alleged that, on April 29, 2019, defendant reported to be homeless and was placed on a GPS ankle monitor. He kept the battery to his GPS charged until May 2, 2019, and as of May 9, 2019, the battery to his GPS was still dead. The petition further alleged that, on May 8, 2019, the probation officer contacted defendant by phone and informed him the battery to his GPS had been dead since May 2, 2019. As the probation officer was speaking, defendant terminated the phone call. When the officer called him back, the call went to voicemail. Defendant's whereabouts were unknown. The probation officer further reported that defendant had been uncooperative since he began his term and had five prior violations of his PRCS.
On July 16, 2019, the court ordered defendant's PRCS revoked, defendant denied the allegations, and the court set a hearing. Two days later, the court suspended proceedings to inquire into his mental competence under section 1368. He was evaluated by two doctors. On September 4, 2019, after reviewing the doctors' reports, the court found defendant competent to stand trial.
On September 18, 2019, the court conducted a revocation hearing. At the outset, it stated that if defendant admitted the violations, it would sentence him to 140 days, with 140 days of credit, and reinstate him on PRCS; thus, he would be released that same day. Defendant declined the offer and wanted to proceed with the hearing. The People then called defendant's probation officer to testify. She said that when defendant was released on PRCS, he acknowledged and signed the terms and conditions, which stated he was required to check in with probation every two weeks and submit to continuous GPS monitoring. She further testified that he was required to keep his GPS battery charged, and a dead battery would be a violation of his terms. She said defendant violated his terms because his GPS went dead on May 2, 2019. The probation officer said she called him, and he claimed he was charging the battery. When she informed him again that his battery was dead, he hung up the phone. She spoke to him on the phone again in June and told him to report on June 11. Defendant failed to report, and he did not charge his battery at any point during that time period.
Defendant testified on his own behalf and said that since he was homeless, he had no access to an outlet. However, he also claimed he was charging the battery, but it would not charge, so he believed it was broken.
The court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove defendant was in violation of his PRCS. It sentenced him to 180 days in county prison, with 140 days credit, and reinstated his PRCS under all prior terms and conditions; thus, he was to serve the time in custody, then report to the probation department within 48 hours of his release.
On September 26, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied. On October 7, 2019, counsel for defendant filed an amended notice of appeal, based on a contested violation of community supervision.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, 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 no potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has done. He filed an untimely document on February 13, 2020, which contains long, rambling claims that are unintelligible and unsupported by legal or factual analysis. Furthermore, while the brief contains numerous claims, none of them appear to pertain to the order from which defendant appeals, i.e., the trial court's order finding him in violation of his PRCS, sentencing him to 180 days, and reinstating him on PRCS.
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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. CODRINGTON
J.