Opinion
A150836
11-03-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS TAPER, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Napa County Super. Ct. Nos. CR169022, CR170131)
Defendant Thomas Taper appeals from orders entered after his mandatory supervision was revoked in two cases. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Taper was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude there are no arguable issues and affirm.
Based on events that occurred in November 2013, Taper was charged in case no. CR169022 with a felony count of receiving stolen property and a misdemeanor count of possession of burglar's tools. Based on events that occurred in March 2014, Taper was charged in case no. CR170131 with felony counts of attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle and receiving stolen property and a misdemeanor count of possession of burglar's tools. In connection with both cases, Taper was alleged to have served a prior prison term.
The charges were brought under Penal Code sections 496, subdivision (a) (receiving stolen property) and 466 (possession of burglar's tools). All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
The charges were brought under sections 459 and 664 (attempted burglary), 496, subdivision (a) (receiving stolen property), and 466 (possession of burglar's tools).
The prior-prison-term allegations were made under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Taper eventually pleaded no contest to the charge of receiving stolen property and the prison-term allegation in both cases, and the remaining counts were dismissed. In March 2015, the trial court denied probation and imposed the same sentence in both cases: a total term of three years, comprised of two years for receiving stolen property and one year for the prior prison term. The court ordered that Taper serve the three-year terms concurrently and imposed a split sentence under section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(b) requiring him to serve the first year in county jail and the last two years on mandatory supervision. Among the terms of his mandatory supervision were ones requiring him not to possess any firearm or any "non-prescribed or illegal substances."
In January 2017, Taper was arrested in San Francisco for charges including possession of cocaine base for sale and possession of a firearm by a felon. In response, a petition to revoke mandatory supervision was filed in both Napa County cases at issue here.
Taper was arrested for violations of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5 and sections 1203.2, subdivision (a), 25400, subdivision (a)(1), and 29800, subdivision (a)(1). --------
At a contested hearing on the petitions, San Francisco Police Officer John Cunnie testified that he had observed Taper "slowly meandering" down the sidewalk in an area known for "drug sales activity." The officer asked Taper if he was on probation, and Taper answered that he was. The officer searched Taper and found a vehicle key and some cash. Another officer at the scene then discovered a plastic bag within a few feet of where Taper was standing that contained "18 pea-size rocks of a white substance, each of them individually wrapped in plastic," that were later determined to be cocaine base. Officer Cunnie eventually discovered a car parked about a block away that matched the key in Taper's possession and was registered to Taper. A search of the car revealed a loaded revolver on the front passenger's seat and "indicia belonging to" Taper.
The trial court found that Taper had violated the terms of his mandatory supervision by possessing cocaine base and by possessing a firearm. It revoked mandatory supervision in both cases and ordered him to serve the remaining 128 days of his sentences in county jail.
No error appears in the revocation of mandatory supervision or the sentencing proceedings in either case. There was sufficient evidence to support revocation of mandatory supervision. Taper's counsel below questioned whether Taper could be found in violation of the terms of his mandatory supervision based on the firearm, because the San Francisco trial court had granted a motion to suppress it. But no such objection was raised as to the violation based on the cocaine base, the possession of which independently supported revocation of Taper's mandatory supervision. Taper was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
There are no meritorious arguments to be argued on appeal. The orders revoking mandatory supervision in both cases are affirmed.
/s/_________
Humes, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Dondero, J. /s/_________
Banke, J.