Opinion
C099212
04-29-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERRENCE LAMAR WILBURN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. 23PA009730)
MESIWALA, J.
In 2022, defendant Terrence Wilburn was convicted of threatening or injuring a public officer. After he was released on parole, the trial court revoked his parole. Defendant appealed. Defendant's appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having done so, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Division of Parole Operations filed a petition to revoke defendant's parole alleging he absconded from parole supervision and failed to participate in GPS monitoring.
The parole agent testified at the revocation hearing that defendant's parole release conditions required him to report to the parole office on the first working day after his release from prison and to participate in continuous electronic monitoring. Defendant refused to sign the conditions of parole, and when his parole agent went over those conditions in a video conference, defendant told the agent that the agent might as well arrest him now because he would not wear an electronic monitor. Defendant also refused placement in a housing program.
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation released defendant from prison in San Luis Obispo on June 18, 2023, and he was required to report to the parole office by close of business on June 19. He did not report. The parole agent obtained a warrant for defendant's arrest and defendant was arrested on June 23. Defendant did not testify at the revocation hearing.
The trial court found there was sufficient evidence to sustain the violations and sentenced defendant to 180 days in jail.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting the court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief, and defendant has not done so.
After independently reviewing the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROBIE, Acting P. J. KRAUSE, J.