Opinion
C082137
02-10-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WAYNE TOWNSEND, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 15RP6480)
Appointed counsel for defendant Wayne Townsend has filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In December 2014, defendant was placed on postrelease community supervision for violation of Penal Code section 417.8 (felony exhibiting a deadly weapon with intent to resist arrest); supervision was scheduled to terminate on March 14, 2018.
On March 2, 2016, the Calaveras County probation department (the department) filed a petition to revoke defendant's release. The department alleged defendant violated his supervision by: (1) failing to obey all laws; (2) a "strap violation" on his electronic monitoring bracelet; (3) possessing marijuana; and (4) consuming alcohol.
On March 21, 2016, defendant admitted the alleged violations. The trial court ordered defendant to serve 150 days in county jail and reinstated his supervised release, awarding him 44 days of custody credit. Defendant waived his right to appeal. The trial court also dismissed an unrelated pending misdemeanor and denied defendant's request to transfer his supervised release to Lassen County, because defendant had not established residency there.
On March 24, 2016, the court denied a request by defendant to modify his supervised release by removing certain alcohol and drug-related conditions and his curfew requirement.
Defendant appealed from each of the court's March 21 and March 24, 2016, orders denying his requests to modify the terms of his supervised release. Defendant also purports to appeal "all revocations prior to the two on appeal." He fails to otherwise identify those orders, and we have found no earlier revocation orders in the record on appeal. The trial court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of the filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Butz, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Renner, J.