Filed 5/9/16 P. v. M a cDaniel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

ROBERT YULE M AC DANIEL

,

Defendant and Appellant. G05 2098

(Super. Ct. No. P00674 )

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a post

judgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,

Craig E . Robison

, Retired Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Kendall Dawson Wa sley , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *2 A fter a contested parole revocation hearing the court found defendant

Robert Yule MacDaniel violated parole by absconding supervision and removing his

global positioning system ( GPS ) monitoring device. The court revoked and reinstated his

parole and sentenced him to 170 days in jail. MacDaniel timely appealed.

We appointed counsel to represent MacDaniel on appeal. Counsel filed a

brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court s he found

no arguable issues to assert on defendant ’s behalf. ( Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.

738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) To assist us in our independent review of

the record, counsel suggested we consider the issues discussed below

.

Counsel and this court both notified MacDaniel that he could file a

supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, we received no supplemental brief from

him and the time for him to file one has passed.

FACTS

P arole Agent Truong supervised MacDaniel . He testified another parole

agent reviewed the terms and conditions of parole with MacDaniel , and MacDaniel

initial ed and sign ed a written stateme nt of th o se terms and conditions

.

Among other things, MacDaniel w as requir ed to participate in GPS

monitoring as a condition of his parole . The GPS device assigned to and wo rn by

MacDaniel was ide ntified by a serial number.

On January 15, 2015, Truong received a text message indicating

MacDaniel ’ s GPS device had suffered a “ master tamper.” Truong then sent several alerts

to the GPS device instructing MacDaniel to contact Truong. MacDaniel did not respond,

so Truong went to the last known locati on of the GPS device.

Truong found the GPS device in the bushes, but MacDaniel was not there.

The GPS device was missing pieces. One side was intact and the other was broken.

Truong testified t he only way to get the GPS device off was to cut or br e ak it.

MacDaniel did not report to Truong as required for 40 days ending February 25, 2015.3 DISCUSSION

We have independently reviewed the entire record according to our

obligations under Anders v. California

, supra , 386 U.S. 738 and People v. Wende

, supra ,

25 Cal.3d 436

, and we have found no arguable issues on appeal

.

(1) Counsel suggests we consider whether the People presented sufficient

evidence to support the finding MacDaniel violated his parole. They did . (Pen. Code, § §

1203.2, subd s . (a)

, (b)(1), 1203.3, subd. ( b )

, 3000.08, 3010.10 ; see People v. Rodriguez

(1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 447 [burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence] .)

(2) Counsel suggests we consider whether the People’s evidence was

properly admitted and considered by the court. We have found no evidentiary error.

(3) Counsel suggests we consider whether the 170

- day county jail sentence

was proper

. It was. The sentence was well within the court ’s substantial discretion.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

TH OMPSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY , P. J.

IKOLA , J.