1

Filed 1/20/ 21 P. v. Williams CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

INDUGO ASIFA WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant. A160969
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. PRL

- 201806

- 1)

Indugo Asifa Williams appeals from an order finding he violated

various conditions of his parole, reinstating parole, and imposing a jail

sentence

. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (f). ) His appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record for arguable issues

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). Williams is not

entitled to a Wende revie w in a post

- conviction proceeding. ( People v. Serrano

(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 500

- 501 ( Serrano ).) Even assuming Wende does

apply here, we affirm because his appeal presents no meritorious arguable

issues.

BACKGROUND

In 2019, Williams was under parol e supervision. He agreed to parole

conditions, including continuous electronic monitoring and prohibitions on

tampering with his monitoring device. He was also required to participate in2

treatment for sex offenders and prohibited from traveling more than 50 miles

away from his residence in San Francisco without prior approval from his

parole agent. In June 2020, Williams traveled to Santa Rosa, cut off his

monitoring device, and threw it away. The next day, after his damaged

monitoring device was locate d and his parole agent enlisted the assistance of

the Santa Rosa police department, Williams was ultimately taken into

custody.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed a petition to

revoke Williams’ parole. After a September 2020 hearin g on the petition, the

trial court found Williams violated his parole conditions, ordered Williams

reinstated on parole, and modif ied the terms to include 180 days in county

jail.

DISCUSSION

Williams ’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende and its federal

constitutional counterpart in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744

-

745 , listing two potentially arguable questions supporting an appeal: whether

the trial court abused its discretion by findi ng Williams “acted willfully when

he absconded from San Francisco, damaged his GPS device, and failed to

attend the required sex offender classes,” and whether the trial court

properly found Williams absconded . Counsel informed Williams of his right

to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, which he has not done.

A.

Williams is not entitled to a Wende review of the trial court’s order

finding that he violated his parole conditions and returning him to cus tody.

( Serrano

, supra , 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501, 503

- 504 [dismissing Wende

appeal].) Review under Wende or Anders does not extend beyond the first

appeal of right from a criminal conviction. ( Id. at p. 500 .) Although3

Williams’ appeal originates from a criminal context, it “is not a first appeal of

right from a criminal prosecution, because it is not an appeal from the

judgment of conviction.” ( Id

. at p. 501 [ Wende review inapplicable for denial

of postconviction motion to vacate guilty plea].)

B.

E ven if we consider Williams’ appeal, there are no meritorious issues to

be argued. ( Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 5 44, fn. 7

[appellate court may retain an appeal seeking Wende review]. ) Substantial

evidence supports the finding that Williams’ failure to comply with his parole

conditions was willful rather than the result of circumstances beyond his

control. ( People v. Zaring (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 362, 379

. ) Williams admitted

he cut off his monitoring device and threw it away, and he said he did not

attend his morning sex offender treatment program meetings because he was

too tired from working the previous day

. He also admitted he did not call his

parole agent before leaving San Franci sco because he feared being arrested

and placed in San Francisco County Jail, where he believed he would not be

safe. Williams’ parole agent repeatedly attempted to call and send text

messages to Williams upon learning he was in Santa Rosa, but Williams d id

not respond.

And rather than finding Williams “absconded” as defined in the

California Code of Regulations

— a person who leaves “California without

permission, does not return to California after leaving with permission or has

not been available for c ontact for thirty days”

— the trial court found that

Williams violated his parole condition of maintaining contact with his parole

agent. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 15, § 2731, subd. (a).) T he trial court’s decision

modifying his parole and sentencing him to jail time was thus not an abuse of

discretion . (See People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 443 ; People v.4

Zamudio (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 8 , 14 [parole and probation proceedings

analyzed similarly].)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.5 _______________________ BURNS, J.

We concur:

____________________________ SIMONS , ACTING P.J.

____________________________ SELIGMAN , J. *

A160969

* Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.