Filed 10/4/16 P. v. Hibbard 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

MITCHELL ALAN HIBBARD,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G053141

 (Super. Ct. No. 14NF5116)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,

Vickie Hix, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
2

1. Introduction

Mitchell Alan Hibbard (Defendant) admitted a probation violation. As a 

consequence, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced Defendant on his conviction 

for possession or control of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)), for which 

sentence previously had been suspended. Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the 

sentence.

1

 Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire 

record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed 

counsel suggested an issue to assist us in conducting our independent review. Defendant 

was granted 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf, but did not file anything. 

We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief. 

After considering the entire record, we have found no reasonably arguable issue. 

(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

2. Background

In September 2015, a jury found Defendant guilty, as charged, of one count 

of possession or control of child pornography in violation of Penal Code section 311.11, 

subdivision (a). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Defendant 

on five years’ formal probation with standard terms and conditions, including the 

provision that he violate no law. Pursuant to Penal Code section 290, Defendant was 

required to register as a sex offender. 

In December 2015, Defendant’s probation officer filed a petition for 

arraignment on probation violation. The petition alleged Defendant had violated the 

 

 

1

 An order revoking probation while imposition of sentence is suspended is appealable 

from the judgment following revocation. (People v. Sem (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1176, 

1186.) We deem the notice of appeal to be from the judgment. 
3

condition of probation that he violate no law by failing to update his sex offender 

registration status, as required by Penal Code sections 290.011 and 290.018, 

subdivision (g). 

Defendant admitted the probation violation at the probation violation 

arraignment conducted on December 8, 2015. As the same time, Defendant pleaded 

guilty to a related misdemeanor offense. The trial court terminated probation and 

imposed a prison sentence of 16 months on the conviction for possession or control of 

child pornography. Defendant received a total of 626 days’ credit for time served.

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. 

4. Analysis 

We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under 

Wende and Anders, and we find no arguable issues on appeal. Defendant himself has not 

filed a supplemental brief raising any issues for our review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 

Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) 

Counsel has suggested we consider whether Defendant knowingly, 

intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to a contested hearing on the probation 

violation petition. The issue would have not merit. Defendant did not obtain a certificate 

of probable cause before filing the notice of appeal. (See People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 

Cal.4th 68, 74, 78 [certificate of probable cause required to challenge validity of plea and 

sentence imposed in accordance with plea agreement]; People v. Sem, supra, 229 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 1186-1187 [certificate of probable cause required to challenge validity 

of admission of probation violation].) Nothing in the record suggests that Defendant did 

not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to a contested hearing on the 

probation violation petition.
4

4. Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

ARONSON, ACTING P. J.

IKOLA, J.