Opinion
E066561
02-09-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EARL WAYNE WYATT, Defendant and Appellant.
William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1303611) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Eric M. Nakata, Judge. Affirmed. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Earl Wayne Wyatt pled no contest to assault with intent to cause great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) He also admitted he had one prior strike conviction. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) In accordance with the plea agreement, a trial court placed defendant on probation for a period of three years, under specified conditions. Subsequently, the court found him in violation of his probation and sentenced him to four years in state prison. Defendant now appeals. We affirm.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. --------
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 11, 2016, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of probation, alleging that defendant violated his probation by failing to report to probation as directed.
On June 26, 2016, a contested hearing was held on the petition. Defendant's probation officer, Mizraim Sanchez, testified that defendant reported to probation on May 2, 2016. At that time, he said he could not stay because he had a doctor's appointment. Officer Sanchez directed him to report back the next day. Officer Sanchez testified that defendant failed to report as directed on May 3, 2016, and that he was, therefore, in violation of his probation.
Defendant also testified at the hearing. He said he reported on May 2, 2016, but told his probation officer he could not stay due to his doctor's appointment. However, defendant then said Officer Sanchez did not tell him to report back on May 3, 2016. Defendant said that on May 4, 2016, he was at his friend's house when his probation officer happened to stop by "with four or five of his comrades [to] do a sweep." His probation officer saw him and said he needed to report to the probation department, so he went in the next day. The court asked defendant if Officer Sanchez was lying on the stand. Defendant said he did not think Sanchez was intentionally lying; rather, he just made a mistake. The court found defendant in violation of his probation.
ANALYSIS
After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, and identifying one potential arguable issues: whether there was sufficient evidence to support the court's finding that his conduct constituted a willful violation of his probation.
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. McKINSTER
J.