Filed 1/14/20 P. v. Williams CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAVON TAMAR WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

G057483

(Super. Ct. No. 13NF0222)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael F. Murray, Judge. Affirmed.

Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

While on felony probation, defendant Javon Tamar Williams failed to report to his probation officer. After a contested hearing, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to three years imprisonment in the county jail. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h).) Defendant filed an appeal from his probation revocation hearing and we appointed appellate counsel.

Appellate counsel filed an opening brief that informed this court that he had found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief; to date, we have received no response. We provide the following “brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)

I

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 17, 2012, defendant took a 2013 Chevy Tahoe without the owner’s consent.

On December 17, 2014, defendant pleaded guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle and vehicle taking with prior convictions; defendant admitted three prison priors. The court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation, which included various terms and conditions. One of the probation terms required defendant to: “Obey all orders, rules, regulations, and directives of the . . . Probation Department . . . .”

In 2015 and 2016, the court revoked, but later reinstated defendant’s probation. On October 13, 2016, the court issued a warrant for defendant’s arrest after he had failed to report to probation. In September 2018, defendant was taken into custody. On February 28, 2019, the court conducted a contested probation revocation hearing. Deputy Probation Officer Jeffrey Burgett testified that he was defendant’s probation supervisor. Burgett testified that in September 2016, he had directed defendant to report to probation on October 4, 2016, but defendant failed to do so. Burgett went to defendant’s home address, but he was not home. Defendant’s mother said that she had not heard from him. Burgett also could not make contact with defendant by phone. Thereafter, Burgett requested a warrant for defendant’s arrest.

The court found defendant had violated the terms of his probation “by clear and convincing evidence, in fact, beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court terminated defendant’s probation and sentenced him to three years in jail, with credit for 850 days for time already served. The three-year sentence consisted of the midterm for the receiving a stolen vehicle with a prior felony conviction charge, and a concurrent two-year term for taking a vehicle with a prior felony conviction. (§§ 496d, subd. (a); 666.5, subd. (a); Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) The court struck the three prior prison term enhancements. (667.5, subd. (b).)

II

DISCUSSION

When appointed counsel is unable to identify any arguable issues on appeal, we independently review the record. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.” (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)

Here, we have independently examined the record and agree with defendant’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues exist. Our analysis is largely supported by the transcript of the probation revocation hearing, which disclosed to us that there was essentially no dispute that defendant violated the terms of his probation. Thus, we affirm the ruling of the trial court in all respects.

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

FYBEL, J.

GOETHALS, J.