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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 ordered 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 review 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 parole supervision. He agreed to parole 

conditions, including continuous electronic monitoring and prohibitions on 

tampering with his monitoring device. He was also required to participate in 
2

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 located 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 hearing on the petition, the

trial court found Williams violated his parole conditions, ordered Williams 

reinstated on parole, and modified 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 finding 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 custody. 

(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.) Although
3

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.

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

be argued. (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544, 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 Francisco 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 did 

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 contact 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).) The 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.