Opinion
G054986
01-31-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD EUGENE HARRIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Eric C. Reynolds, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16HF0782) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Derek Guy Johnson, Judge. Affirmed. Eric C. Reynolds, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
A jury convicted Richard Eugene Harris of failure to register as a sex offender within five days of his birthday in July 2015. (Pen. Code, §§ 290.011 subd. (c), 290.018, subd. (b).) Defendant appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Harris did not file a supplemental brief. Our independent review of the record discloses no arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Counsel filed a declaration stating he thoroughly reviewed the record in the case, as did an attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc. He advised Harris that a brief on his behalf was being filed in accordance with the procedures outlined in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and provided Harris with a copy of his brief. He informed Harris he could file a supplemental brief raising any points he wished to call to this court's attention, and counsel would make a copy of the record available to Harris if he requested it. Counsel advised Harris he could request that he withdraw as counsel, and he would move to be relieved as appointed counsel if Harris requested it. --------
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The parties stipulated to the following: Harris was previously convicted of a sex offense in California requiring him to register as a sex offender beginning in 1979. Harris knew he had a lifetime duty to register as a sex offender and to register every year within five working days of his birthday in July. He also knew if he had no address and was registering as a transient, he had a duty to register every 30 days with a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over where he was temporarily staying. Harris knew if he moved out of California, he had a duty to register in the new state, and to notify the last registering agency in California within five working days of his move. Finally, Harris knew he was required to notify the last registering law enforcement agency within five working days of changing his residence inside or outside of the state.
At trial, Rosemary Geist, a lead correctional records specialist at the Santa Ana Jail, testified individuals may complete their registration by coming to the jail lobby on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The registration process for an annual update takes approximately 10 to 20 minutes if the lobby is not busy, and up to 45 minutes if it is busy. When an individual registers, the clerk asks for identification and runs a check for active warrants or holds. The clerk retrieves the individual's information and registration form from the California Sex and Arson Registry (CSAR) database, reviews the information on the form with the individual, and inputs the current information into the form. After the form is completed, the individual signs, initials, and fingerprints the form. The clerk then creates a record for the Jail Management System (JMS) and photographs the individual. The individual receives a copy of the form, a second copy is forwarded to the Sex Registration Unit for the Santa Ana Police Department, and a third copy is taken to the police department records.
Harris's CSAR packet reflected Harris registered on May 14, 2015 after moving into California from out of state. The next registration event was June 17, 2015, a monthly update due to Harris's transient status requiring registration every 30 days. He did not register in July within five days of his birthday, nor did he update his transient registration that month. The next registration event was a change of address to out of state on August 21, 2015.
An Irvine police officer arrested Harris on the evening of June 12, 2016 at an Irvine park. The parties stipulated Harris had not registered as a sex offender in Nevada between June 17, 2015 and June 12, 2016.
Defense
Harris testified he returned to California in May 2015 and remained until August 2015. He recalled registering in May 2015. He did not recall registering in June 2015, but agreed Geist may have registered him that month. He testified he remembered registering in July 2015 on the Monday or Tuesday following his birthday, which was a Sunday. He recalled mentioning to the clerk he would be moving soon and the clerk instructed him to bring something in writing. He thought he met with Geist in July 2015, but was not absolutely sure. He further remembered registering in August 2015 because he moved to Nevada the next day.
The jury convicted Harris of failure to register as a sex offender within five working days of his birthday. Harris admitted suffering two prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). In May 2017, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Harris on formal probation for a period of five years on various terms and conditions, including a jail term with credit for time served. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine.
II
DISCUSSION
Following Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel's brief and the appellate record. Harris's counsel notes he considered several issues in conducting his review, including whether the evidence was sufficient to support Harris's conviction and whether the prosecutor misstated the burden of proof during closing argument. Our review of the entire record, including the matters identified by counsel, does not show the existence of an arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 442-443.) Harris has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106), nor has he requested to have appellate counsel relieved. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
ARONSON, J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, ACTING P. J. THOMPSON, J.