Opinion
D072535
03-29-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD B. EGGSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Cindy Brines, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CPR151184) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Desiree A. Bruce-Lyle, Judge. Affirmed. Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Richard B. Eggson pleaded guilty to selling and possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a), 11351.5.) He also admitted allegations that he was not eligible for probation and was subject to a sentencing enhancement based on prior drug crimes. (Pen. Code, § 1203.07, subd. (a)(11); Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a).) In 2010 the trial court sentenced Eggson to nine years in prison. In 2015 Eggson was placed on postrelease community supervision (PRCS) (§ 3450 et seq.) under certain conditions.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
In May 2017 a petition for revocation of PRCS was filed alleging that Eggson violated certain conditions of his release. After Eggson denied violating any conditions of his PRCS, the court held a revocation hearing where it heard testimony from Eggson's probation officer and received drug testing results into evidence. The trial court found that Eggson violated four terms and conditions of his PRCS, namely by: (1) testing positive for a controlled substance; (2) failing to follow the probation officer's direction to go to the CTC (Community Transition Center); (3) failing to report a change of address after he left CTC; and (4) failing to submit the passcodes for his cell phones.
The court revoked and reinstated Eggson's PRCS with the additional condition that he serve 180 days in jail. Eggson received credit for 43 days of time served and 42 days of section 4019 credit, for a total of 85 days of presentence credit. Eggson timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. She presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has identified the following issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 (Anders)): whether (1) the court abused its discretion by failing to apply the good cause standard to determine whether to allow the probation officer to testify instead of the chemist as to all the drug testing results; (2) the probation officer's testimony regarding what the CTC officer told him about Eggson's actions was inadmissible hearsay and, if so, was it prejudicial; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to prove Eggson violated conditions of his PRCS. We offered defendant the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has not responded.
"The Postrelease Community Supervision Act of 2011, adopted as part of the 2011 realignment legislation addressing public safety (Realignment Act), provides for local post-incarceration supervision of less serious offenders released from state prison, transferring their supervision from state parole authorities. (§ 3450 et seq., added by Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 479.) Thus, among other things, the Realignment Act provides that a defendant sentenced to state prison is 'subject to a mandatory period of supervision following release, either parole supervision by the state (§ 3000 et seq.), or [PRCS] by a county probation department. [Citation.]' . . . A PRCS search condition, like a parole search condition, is imposed on all individuals subject to PRCS. (§ 3465.)" (People v. Douglas (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 855, 863-864.)
Section 1203.2, as amended by the realignment legislation, governs the procedure for revoking various forms of supervision, including PRCS. (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) Section 1203.2 provides in part: "[T]he court may revoke and terminate the supervision of the person if the interests of justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to believe from the report of the probation . . . officer . . . that the person has violated any of the conditions of his or her supervision." (§ 1203.2, subd. (a), italics added.)
The supervising agency can petition the court to revoke supervision and the hearing officer has the authority to send the offender to jail for up to 180 days. (§ 3455.) The burden of proof in a PRCS revocation hearing is preponderance of the evidence. (See People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 447 ["proof of facts supporting the revocation of probation pursuant to section 1203.2[, subdivision] (a) may be made by a preponderance of the evidence"].) An order revoking PRCS is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, while the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. (People v. Gonzalez (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 370, 381, disapproved on other grounds by People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 646.)
Eggson's PRCS was conditioned on, among other things, that he report any change of address to his probation officer within 72 hours and submit his personal effects, computers, and recordable media to search at any time when required by his probation officer. The probation officer testified that Eggson was aware of his PRCS conditions. Eggson violated his PRCS conditions by failing to report a change of address to his probation officer after he left CTC. Eggson also failed to give the passcodes to his cell phones to his probation officer so that the phones could be searched. These findings amply support the trial court's revocation order. Because a revocation order can be based on a single violation, there is no need for us to address whether the evidence supported the other grounds for revocation cited by the trial court. (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).)
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Eggson on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. O'ROURKE, J.