Opinion
B301831
06-22-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRAVIS WATSON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA465838) THE COURT:
Appellant Travis Watson violated probation three times in less than a year. The trial court gave him multiple opportunities to improve his conduct, but ultimately found that he would not comply. It revoked his probation and sentenced him to prison for two years.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in his appeal from the probation revocation. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 26 Cal.3d 436, 441-443 (Wende).) We advised appellant that he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. He did not submit a supplemental brief.
The preliminary hearing transcript shows that a supermarket employee saw appellant take an item from the liquor aisle. When stopped outside the store by a security officer, appellant denied having unpaid items; however, there were multiple bulges in his pocket. Asked to submit to a pat down, appellant hit the officer. He became verbally abusive and threatening, saying "I'll kill you." The officer subdued appellant and found a beer hidden in his jacket.
Appellant was charged with second-degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) On May 7, 2018, he pled no contest to an amended charge of assault by force, with a maximum prison term of four years. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) Imposition of sentence was suspended. Appellant was placed on probation for three years; he agreed to the terms of his probation.
Shortly after his release from jail, in June 2018, appellant was arrested for battery. The court revoked his probation. In October 2018, appellant admitted a probation violation. The court reinstated probation but ordered appellant to serve 210 days in jail and participate in 26 anger management sessions.
Appellant failed to appear in court on January 7, 2019, to prove his enrollment and progress in the anger management program. The court issued a bench warrant. When appellant was brought to court in February 2019, the court stated that he failed to report for probation or show proof of completing his community service requirement or anger management program. Nonetheless, the court reinstated probation, subject to the conditions previously imposed, after appellant admitted the violation.
Appellant failed to appear in court on April 9, 2019, to prove his progress in the court-ordered programs. The court issued a bench warrant and revoked probation. It found that appellant failed to return to court when ordered, never reported to the probation department, and is not a good candidate for probation. It rejected appellant's explanation that he is not from Los Angeles, is homeless and could not find the probation office.
Appellant requested an outpatient mental health program, but the court indicated that it could not trust appellant to participate on his own, given his history of nonperformance. He was precluded from living in a dormitory setting in jail for a mental health program because of his security status. A probation department officer testified that appellant was required to report to her within 48 hours of his release from jail. He did not appear, nor did she ever receive proof he complied with court-ordered programs.
The court found appellant in violation of probation because (1) he violated orders to appear in court and show proof of progress in anger management and community service programs and (2) he did not report to the probation department. The court terminated probation and sentenced appellant to the low term of two years in prison.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126.) The trial court held numerous hearings for appellant in an unavailing effort to find an alternative to prison. The uncontradicted evidence shows that appellant repeatedly violated probation despite having multiple opportunities to comply. The probation revocation order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. /s/_________
LUI, P.J. /s/_________
ASHMANN-GERST, J. /s/_________
CHAVEZ, J.