Opinion
E069961
07-02-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KYLE AUSTIN ELLER, Defendant and Appellant.
Stephanie M. Adraktas, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PIB1800001) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith M. Fouladi, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Stephanie M. Adraktas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Kyle Austin Eller was convicted of aggravated sexual battery of a victim under the age of 13 in the state of Virginia. He was sentenced to a term of 20 years in prison. However, he was released on parole supervision in California, by way of an interstate compact agreement. A trial court subsequently found that defendant was in violation of his parole for violating the term that he not enter or loiter within 250 feet of a place where children congregate. The court also found good cause to refer him back to the State of Virginia for future parole eligibility and/or disposition.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
One of defendant's parole conditions stated that he could "not enter or loiter within 250 feet of the perimeter of places where children congregate; e.g., day care centers, schools, parks, playgrounds, video arcades, swimming pools, state fairgrounds, county fairgrounds, etc." The probation department filed a petition for revocation of parole, alleging that defendant was present in a prohibited area, in violation of this condition. Defendant denied the allegation; thus, the court held a parole revocation hearing.
Defendant's parole officer testified at the hearing. He was assigned to monitor defendant's whereabouts, using a global positioning system. On December 18, 2017, the officer tracked defendant's location to a paintball park. The officer called defendant and asked where he was. Defendant admitted he was at the paintball park.
The officer further testified that defendant had two previous parole violations in California. The first violation was for being in possession of sexually explicit material. The second violation was for use of alcohol and marijuana.
The owner of the paintball park testified at the hearing that, on December 18, 2017, there were approximately 200 people at the park, and 20 percent of them were minors. There were three "kid parties" there that day.
During closing arguments, defense counsel conceded that defendant violated his parole conditions. However, he argued that an intermediate sanction was appropriate, rather than revocation. The court disagreed and found probable cause to support revocation.
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 not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. SLOUGH
J.