Filed 1/9/20 P. v. Spaugy CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEVERION SPAUGY,

Defendant and Appellant.

E073310

(Super.Ct.No. 19CJ000505)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Patrick L. Christianson, Temporary Judge. Affirmed.

Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I

INTRODUCTION

In April 2015, defendant and appellant Jeverion Spaugy was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and was sentenced to two years eight months in state prison. Defendant was released on parole in April 2016 and placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS). In March 2019, defendant violated his PRCS by failing to follow the reasonable directives of his probation officer and failing to report to the probation department as required by his terms and conditions. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his PRCS, and sentenced defendant to 180 days in county jail with 31 days of credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

II

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On April 3, 2015, defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)).

On April 10, 2015, defendant was sentenced to two years eight months in state prison.

On April 14, 2016, defendant was released on PRCS under stated terms and conditions.

On March 1, 2019, a petition to revoke defendant’s PRCS was filed. The petition alleged that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his PRCS by (1) failing to cooperate and follow all reasonable directives of his probation officer, and (2) failing to report to his probation officer as directed.

A contested evidentiary hearing was held on July 10, 2019. At that time, a probation officer familiar with the probation department’s business records and defendant testified. Probation Officer Florence Ruiz testified that the probation department keeps records of communications between the department and probationers and other pertinent information in a computerized system called “Caseload Explorer.” Ruiz was familiar with how the records are created and received. She explained that the records are created during the course of the San Bernardino County Probation Department’s business.

Ruiz was familiar with the records related to defendant because she used them in preparing her report recommending revocation of defendant’s PRCS. Ruiz noted that defendant reported to the probation department in January 2019 and was instructed thereafter to report monthly via an automated kiosk system. The records indicated that defendant had failed to report in February 2019. Two attempts were thereafter made to contact defendant by telephone, but defendant never responded. Ruiz further stated that if defendant had called back, an annotation would have been made in his Caseload Explorer record. Ruiz was unable to find any report of defendant registering at a kiosk system or via the kiosk system and explained that when a person reports via a kiosk, that information is automatically entered into Caseload Explorer.

Defendant testified that when he first reported in January 2019, he was not given any further instructions about how to report to probation in the future. He also stated that he did not recall receiving any telephone calls from the probation department in January and February 2019. Defendant noted that he had provided the address and telephone number of his employer to the probation department, but he had never been informed by his employer that the probation department was trying to contact him. Defendant believed that he was supposed to wait for a call from the probation department instructing him on what to do next. He also asserted that in all the time he had been on probation, he had always checked in face to face and had never checked in using the kiosk system.

Following argument, the trial court found defendant in violation of his PRCS as alleged in the petition. The court thereafter reinstated defendant’s PRCS on modified terms and conditions and ordered defendant to serve 180 days in county jail with 31 days of credit for time served.

On August 5, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

III

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, 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, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

IV

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

Acting P. J.

We concur:

SLOUGH

J.

RAPHAEL

J.