Opinion
C084523
11-20-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN MATTHEW FRANCIS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PAG56592)
Appointed counsel for defendant John Matthew Francis, 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.) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In April 2009, defendant was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to six years in state prison.
On July 23, 2013, defendant was released from prison and placed on state-supervised parole for five years. His term of parole expires on October 21, 2018.
Defendant violated his parole in April 2014 and in October 2015. He served time in county jail for both violations.
On February 23, 2017, defendant failed to attend his mandatory sex-offender treatment program. Program staff and defendant's parole agent attempted to reach defendant to no avail. That same day, the parole department reviewed defendant's global positioning satellite (GPA) monitoring records and discovered that on February 23, 2017, defendant was in a park. As a condition of his parole, defendant was prohibited from entering or loitering within 100 yards of the perimeter of a park.
On February 24, 2017, parole agent Rudolph Guzman went to defendant's home, where he found defendant smelling like alcohol. As a condition of his parole, defendant is precluded from drinking alcohol. Agent Guzman asked defendant if had been drinking alcohol; defendant admitted he was drinking the night before. Agent Guzman arrested defendant and transported him to jail.
At the jail, defendant signed a "statement of admission" admitting he consumed alcohol on February 23, 2017. He told agent Guzman he did not attend his sex-offender treatment program on February 23 because he was having car trouble. Defendant also said he was at the park to provide his adult sons, who are homeless, with food and supplies.
Following a contested parole revocation hearing, the trial court ruled defendant violated his parole by consuming alcohol and that, standing alone, warranted 180 days in county jail. The court also noted that the sex-offender treatment program was a "key factor" of defendant's parole and defendant needed to contact his parole agent or the program if he was going to be absent. Finally, the court found defendant conceded he was in the park on February 23, 2017, a "technical violation" of his parole. The court thus sentenced defendant to 180 days in county jail but awarded him 100 days of custody credit, leaving defendant to serve 80 days.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL, Acting P. J. We concur: ROBIE, J. RENNER, J.