Opinion
E073053
10-28-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID GARY HAYES, Defendant and Appellant.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BAR1900614) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith Fouladi, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to an agreement, defendant and appellant, David Gary Hayes, admitted violating a term of his Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS), after which the court sentenced him to 176 days in jail with 73 days of credit. After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.
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 identifying three potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court properly advised defendant of his rights and the consequences of an admission before accepting defendant's admission that he violated the terms of his PRCS; (2) whether the court properly found defendant in violation of his PRCS; and (3) whether the court properly imposed a sanction of 176 days. We affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2014, defendant was convicted of felony unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor willful resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to four years of imprisonment. On July 19, 2016, defendant was released on PRCS. Defendant subsequently violated his PRCS on four occasions.
On March 14, 2019, the court sentenced defendant to 177 days in custody. A probation officer directed defendant to report to the probation office within two days of his release from custody. On March 16, 2019, defendant was released from custody. As of March 29, 2019, defendant had failed to report to probation.
On April 3, 2019, a probation officer filed a petition for revocation of defendant's PRCS for failing to report within two days of his release from custody. The probation officer observed that defendant's "unwillingness or inability to report to the probation department makes it impossible . . . to properly supervise him in the community and offer him rehabilitative services."
At the hearing on the petition on May 29, 2019, the court asked defendant if he had read and understood the admission that he was in violation of the terms of his PRCS; defendant responded that he had and did. The court asked if defendant had any questions; defendant responded that he did not.
Defendant admitted he was in violation of the condition of his PRCS that he report to probation. Defense counsel joined in the admission. The court reinstated PRCS with a sentence of 176 days in jail with credit for 73 days; the court noted defendant's release date would be July 19, 2019. On June 5, 2019, defense counsel moved to withdraw the admission; the court denied the motion.
II. DISCUSSION
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 independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. SLOUGH
J.