Filed 1/24/20 P. v. Bosley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT DEWAYNE BOSLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

F079207

(Super. Ct. No. P17900079-3)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mark E. Cullers, Judge.

Jean M. Marinovich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Dewayne Bosley asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On March 26, 2014, defendant was convicted of failing to register (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (b)(1)) and was sentenced to four years in prison. On November 2, 2016, he was released on parole. Todd Rudder was his parole agent.

As relevant to this case, on April 10, 2019, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed a petition for revocation of defendant’s parole. The parole violation petition alleged two violations: (1) defendant’s failure to attend a required parole outpatient appointment and (2) defendant’s failure (on eight different days) to properly charge his GPS monitor twice a day (every 12 hours) for at least one hour.

On April 23, 2019, defendant filed a demurrer to the petition, alleging the petition provided an inadequate statement of reasons that intermediate sanctions were not employed, and included uncharged and unproven allegations of misconduct that had not been alleged as parole violations.

On April 26, 2019, a parole violation hearing was held. First, the trial court heard argument on the demurrer and overruled it, concluding the petition’s allegations were permissible and, in any event, the petition also alleged nine prior violations of parole. The court then heard testimony and argument on the current violation and found defendant had violated parole by failing to attend the parole outpatient appointment and failing to charge his GPS monitor. The court revoked and reinstated parole under the same terms and conditions, with 140 days of jail time.

The same day, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The order revoking defendant’s parole is affirmed.