Opinion
B296219
05-06-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MACEO V. WARMACK, Defendant and Appellant.
Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 8PH07894 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert M. Kawahara, Judge. Affirmed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 27, 2018, the Division of Adult Parole Operations filed a petition for parole revocation alleging defendant and appellant Maceo V. Warmack violated a condition of his parole (condition 107) when he contacted Taniesha Robinson. The trial court held a contested revocation hearing on February 14, 2019, found by a preponderance of the evidence Warmack violated condition 107, and revoked parole.
Warmack filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. On October 18, 2019, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Warmack did not respond to our letter advising him of his right to file supplemental briefing.
Following review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, we affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Prosecution Case
Warmack was released from prison on January 9, 2017. Almost a year later, on December 5, 2018, Warmack signed his notice and conditions of parole, which included special condition 107, prohibiting him from "contact[ing] Taniesha R. Robinson either directly, indirectly, [or by] third party."
On December 17, 2018, parole agent Christopher Bell received an email from Warmack's previous parole agent indicating Robinson had "contacted him and reported Parolee Warmack ha[d] been stalking and contacting [her] through email." Agent Bell contacted Robinson that same day, and she provided him with a copy of an email she claimed Warmack sent her on December 15, 2019. In the email, Warmack apologized for the things he had done to her in the past and expressed a desire to reconcile with her. At the revocation hearing, Robinson testified she believed the email was from Warmack because it came from his email address and the content of the email was consistent with things he had said to her in the past.
B. Defense Case
Warmack testified at the revocation hearing. He denied contacting Robinson, claiming he never used the email address in question after October 5, 2018, the date when a restraining order issued against him. He also claimed he never knew Robinson's email address.
DISCUSSION
We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-279; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CURREY, J. We concur: WILLHITE, Acting P. J. COLLINS, J.