Opinion
F086905
10-01-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY MATTHEW JEFF, Defendant and Appellant.
Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. No. R20900251-1 Mark E. Cullers, Judge.
Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
INTRODUCTION
In 2020, appellant and defendant Anthony Matthew Jeff (appellant) was released from prison on postrelease community supervision (PRCS). Shortly afterward, his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his status for failing to maintain contact, and appellant's whereabouts were unknown. He was arrested in 2022 for murder and other felony offenses. In 2024, the trial court found appellant violated the terms of PRCS by failing to obey all laws based on the new case, revoked his status, and sentenced him to county jail while the murder charge was pending.
On appeal from the trial court's revocation and imposition of sentence for the PRCS violation, appellant's counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2018, after a jury trial, appellant was convicted of felony resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F18902094. On November 19, 2018, he was sentenced to the midterm of four years in prison.
All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On August 1, 2020, appellant was released from prison and placed on PRCS for three years.
PRCS Violation
On November 4, 2020, appellant's supervising probation officer filed a petition in the trial court, identified as case No. R20900251-1. The petition stated appellant was convicted in case No. F18902094 and sentenced to four years in 2018, and released on PRCS on August 1, 2020. The petition alleged appellant violated the terms of PRCS because he had been out of contact with probation on several occasions and his whereabouts were unknown. On the same day, the court found probable cause for preliminary revocation of appellant's PRCS.
Appellant failed to appear in court as ordered in 2021. On March 26, 2021, the court formally revoked appellant's PRCS status and issued a no-bail warrant.
New Charges in Case No. F22908378
On November 22, 2022, appellant was arrested and charged in a new case No. F22908378 with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)); assault with a deadly weapon or by means likely to produce great bodily injury on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (c)); assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); evasion of an officer with willful or wanton disregard for safety (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); evasion of an officer causing death or great bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 2800.3, subd. (a)); willful evasion of an officer by driving in the opposing traffic lane (Veh. Code, § 2800.4); felon in possession of a weapon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)); vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)); failing to stop after being in an accident causing injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)); failing to stop after being in an accident causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)); knowingly obtaining a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)); and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).
Preliminary Hearing in Case No. F22908378
On February 15, 2023, appellant appeared in court and denied the PRCS violation alleged in case No. R20900251-1.
On March 8, 2023, the trial court convened a scheduled consolidated hearing on both appellant's contested PRCS violation and the preliminary hearing for the new felony charges. Appellant objected to proceeding on both matters. The court continued the hearing on the PRCS violation, and proceeded with the preliminary hearing on the new charges in case No. F22908378.
At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution introduced evidence that law enforcement officers were looking for appellant because he was wanted on the outstanding warrant for the PRCS violation, and he was also a person of interest in a homicide investigation. On November 22, 2022, appellant was seen driving a silver Ford F-150 to a gas station. Officers surrounded appellant's vehicle and tried to approach him. Appellant backed out of the gas station, crashed into a vehicle, drove forward, and accelerated away. During a high-speed pursuit, appellant failed to yield to the officers, drove the wrong way on a street, and crashed into additional vehicles. A female was ejected from appellant's vehicle, and appellant got out of the Ford and ran away. An officer ran after him and fired a Taser. Appellant ducked down to avoid the darts, and the officer was able to take him into custody.
Appellant's female companion later died from blunt force trauma to the head that she suffered when she was ejected from the Ford. The Ford had been stolen. A nine-millimeter semiautomatic handgun was found inside the vehicle.
On March 9, 2023, the trial court held appellant to answer on murder and the other charged offenses in case No. F22908378.
Hearing on PRCS Violation
On April 20, 2023, the trial court granted appellant's motion to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, at the hearing on the contested PRCS violation.
On August 24, 2023, the trial court held the contested hearing on appellant's PRCS violation. Appellant stipulated the court could review the transcript from the preliminary hearing in his new case to determine whether the PRCS violation was true.
The trial court reviewed the entirety of the preliminary hearing transcript in case No. F22908378, and found sufficient evidence that appellant violated his PRCS by failing to obey all laws.
Sentencing
On September 14, 2023, the trial court terminated appellant's PRCS status, and sentenced him to 180 days in county jail with credit for time served. The court asked the parties about the status of the charges in case No. F22908378. The district attorney said there was an offer for appellant to plead to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)), three counts of assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (c)), and admit a prior strike conviction for a stipulated term of 30 years, but the matter had not been resolved.
On September 25, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's revocation and imposition of sentence for the PRCS violation.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellant's counsel has filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief also includes counsel's declaration indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on May 13, 2024, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. Appellant did not file a supplemental brief.
After the Wende brief was filed, appellant sent a letter to this court and requested his records. On June 3, 2024, this court denied his request because his records had been sent to his appointed counsel. Appellant next requested appointment of another counsel. On June 21, 2024, this court denied the motion because counsel had already been appointed to represent appellant, and counsel's Wende brief meant that this court would independently review the record.
The trial court's finding that appellant willfully violated the terms of his PRCS status by failing to obey all laws is supported by substantial evidence. The court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked his status and ordered him to serve time in county jail. (People v. Gonzalez (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 370, 381, overruled in part on another ground in People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 646; People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 399.)
After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The court's judgment of September 14, 2023, is affirmed.
[*] Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Pena, J.