Opinion
A169791
08-14-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL LAWRENCE ROBERTS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 24-SF-000810-A)
JACKSON, P. J.
After defendant Michael Lawrence Roberts pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his postrelease community supervision (PRCS), the trial court revoked and then reinstated PRCS. Roberts appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 raising no specific issues for review and requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record. Roberts declined the opportunity afforded him to submit a supplemental brief.
Because this is an appeal from a postconviction order to revoke and reinstate PRCS, rather than a direct appeal from a criminal conviction, Roberts is not entitled to Wende review. (People v. Freeman (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 126, 134; People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 222 (Delgadillo).) Additionally, we consider this appeal as abandoned because Roberts failed to file a supplemental brief identifying issues to be reviewed on appeal. (Freeman, at p. 129.)
Nonetheless, despite Roberts's failure to provide supplemental briefing, we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Having done so, we conclude there are no reasonably arguable issues on appeal and, thus, affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Roberts was convicted of violating Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4), assault by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, and sentenced to prison. He was released from custody to PRCS on April 6, 2023. On November 29, 2023, Roberts was charged in case No. 23-SM-020279-A with violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), possession of a controlled substance. On December 29, 2023, Roberts was charged in case No. 24-SM-000531-A with violating Health and Safety Code section 11364, possession of drug paraphernalia; Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), unlawful use of a controlled substance; and Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1), resisting arrest. On January 9, 2024, the San Mateo District Attorney thus filed a petition for revocation of Roberts's PRCS.
On January 12, 2024, a hearing was held to consider the petition for revocation of PRCS, along with the two recently filed misdemeanor cases, Nos. 23-SM-020279-A and 24-SM-000531-A, in San Mateo County Superior Court.
At this hearing, Roberts admitted to the PRCS violation and entered a change of plea to the misdemeanor charges in case No. 23-SM-020279-A. Roberts provided the court with a waiver of rights for entry of plea form as to these charges. After the court asked him whether he understood and waived his rights, Roberts affirmed that he understood and waived his constitutional rights, including his right to a jury trial.
Then, the court granted the prosecutor's motion to dismiss the remaining misdemeanor charges. Accordingly, the court found Roberts in violation of his PRCS, revoked his PRCS, and then ordered that it be reinstated with its previous terms and conditions, subject to the modification that Roberts serve 170 days in county jail, with 29 days of custody credit. Roberts timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
In keeping with the guidelines set forth by Wende, Anders, and Delgadillo, we have reviewed appointed counsel's brief and the appellate record.
Penal Code section 3455 authorizes the supervising agency, in this case the County of San Mateo, to petition the court to revoke, modify, or terminate PRCS. (Pen. Code, § 3455, subd. (a).) This statute also authorizes the hearing officer to return the person to PRCS with modifications of conditions, "including a period of incarceration in a county jail," based "[u]pon a finding that the person has violated the conditions of [PRCS] . . . ." (Pen. Code, § 3455, subd. (a).) The court properly made this decision after Roberts knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to, among other things, an evidentiary hearing, and admitted violating the conditions of his PRCS.
We have reviewed the entire record and have not found an arguable issue on appeal. As a result, we affirm the lower court's order. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court's order revoking and reinstating PRCS with modifications is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Simons, J., Burns, J.