Opinion
A157251
03-09-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDALL HENDRY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. PRS100713)
Randall Hendry appeals from an order revoking and reinstating his postrelease community supervision and requiring him to serve 180 days in county jail. Hendry's appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues, and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2015, Hendry took merchandise from a Walmart without paying and told an employee who confronted him in the parking lot, "Get back or I will stab you." Hendry then pointed a knife at a second employee and threatened to "cut" the employee. In exchange for dismissal of additional charged counts and a grant of probation, Hendry pled no contest to one felony count of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). As anticipated in the negotiated disposition, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Hendry on three years' probation with conditions including a 10-month jail term. About six months later, Hendry's probation was revoked after he admitted failing to report, and he was sentenced to the low term of two years in prison.
In August 2016, Hendry was released and placed on postrelease community supervision (community supervision). Over the next two and one-half years, Hendry violated his community supervision on multiple occasions.
In April 2019, the Department filed the instant petition to revoke Hendry's community supervision. The Department alleged he had violated the terms of his supervision by failing to stay in contact with his probation officer and by failing to follow his probation officer's directions.
At the contested violation hearing, Hendry was represented by counsel. Hendry's probation officer, Frank Pomilia, testified that Hendry's supervision conditions included requirements that Hendry follow the directives of the Sonoma County Probation Department (Department) and maintain communication with his probation officer. About a month earlier, Hendry was released from custody on a prior violation, told Pomilia he would be homeless, and requested permission to travel to Lake County. Pomilia granted Hendry permission on the condition that Hendry report daily by phone. Hendry failed to stay in contact. After a few days passed without hearing from Hendry, Pomilia called him but got no answer. After a week passed with no contact, a warrant issued for Hendry's arrest. Pomilia did not learn of Hendry's whereabouts until he was arrested two weeks after the permission and direction were given. Hendry did not present any evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Hendry violated the terms of his supervision by failing to report and by failing to follow his probation officer's directives. The court revoked and reinstated Hendry's community supervision subject to a new condition that he serve 180 days in county jail, with 65 days' credit for time served.
DISCUSSION
Hendry's appellate counsel advised Hendry of his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court's attention any issue he believes deserves review. Hendry has not filed a brief. We have reviewed the entire record and identified no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
/s/_________
BURNS, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
JONES, P. J. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J.