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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 14 NF 5116)

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.

Lynel le K. Hee, under appoint ment 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. Defend ant filed a notice of appeal from the

sentence. 1 A ppointed 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. Californ ia (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 re cord 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 charg ed, 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

o n five years ’ formal probation with standard terms and conditions , i ncluding 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 petiti on 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 p robation that he violate no law by failing to update his sex offender
registration status, as required by Penal Code sections 290.011 and 290. 0 18,

subdivision (g).

Defendant admitted the probation viola tion a t the probation violation
arraignment conducted on December 8, 2015

. As the same time, Defendant pleaded
guilty to a related misdemeanor offense. The trial court term inated 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,

int elligent ly , 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 accord ance with plea agreement]; People v

. Sem
, supra , 229
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1186

- 1187 [certificate of probable cause required to c hallenge validity
of admission of probation violation].) Nothing in the record suggests that Defendant did

not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiv e his right to a contested hearing on the
probation violation petition.4

4. Disposition

The judgm ent is affirmed.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

ARONSON, ACTING P. J.

IKOLA, J.