Filed 11/14/14 P. v. Wade 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

JEFF E REY LEE WADE, Defendant and Appellant. G050014
(Super. Ct. No. R00292)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Or ange County, W. Michael Hayes, Judge. Affirmed.

Dawn S. Mortazavi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 We appointed counsel to represent Jeff e rey Lee Wade on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client
but advised the cour t she found n o issues to argue on h is behalf. Wade was given 30 days to file written argument on h is own behalf. That time has pa ssed, and he did not
file a brief

. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v . Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The Wende court explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independen t review of the entire record. Whe n the appellant himself raises s pecific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. ( People v. Kelly (2006)
4 0 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Wade did not file a suppl emental brief

.

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel provided the court with information as to one issue that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel questioned whether th ere was sufficient evidence to find Wade had violated his postrelease community super vision. We have reviewed t he record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.
FACTS

Orange County Deputy Probation Officer Rodney Grantham wa s assigned to provide Wade post release community supervision. Wade was indoctrinated regarding
the t erms and conditions of his post release community s upervision

. H e was told he needed to notify his p robation officer in advance of a change of residence and any

an ticipated change of res idence. As part of his supervision, Grantham directed Wade to go to the Phoenix House Residential Drug Treatment Program (Phoenix House)

. Wade
entered the program on December 20, 2013. Grantham visited Wad e while he was in
residence at the Phoenix House on January 6, 2014. After that date, Gratham was at the
Phoenix H ouse to see other parol ees under his supervision but never saw Wade there

.3 On the afternoon of January 28, 2014, Grantham went to the residence address Wade had provided in his file and a ttemp ted to make contact with Wade.
Grantham was not able to contact Wade at the residence. Grantham made no other attempts to contact Wade. After his indoctrination, Wade never notif ied G rantham of a change of address. On February 7 , 2014, a warrant w as issued for Wade’s arrest based
on the fact his whereabouts were unknown. On February 19, 2014, the arrest warrant was
served by an out

- of

- county agency. On March 3, 2014, Grantham filed a petition for revocation of post release community supervision

. The petition alleged Wade viola ted his post release community supervision by failing to report a change of residence and traveling mo re than 50 miles
from his residence without prior approval. The petition alleged Wade was discharged
from Phoenix House a nd arrested by an out

- of

- county agency. On March 28, 2014,
Wade denied the alleged violations

.

On April 18, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the allegations of
Wade ’ s violation of his post release community supervision. The court found Wade in
violation and ordered him to serve 120 days in jail with credit for 118 days already
served. Wade fi led a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION Penal Code section 3455 authorizes a court, “ [u]pon a finding that the person has violated the conditions of postrelease community supervision, ” to “ [r]eturn the person to . . . community supervision with modifications of conditions, if appropriate, including a period of incarceration in county jail ” (Pen. Code, § 3455, subd. (a)(1)), not to exceed 180 days (Pen

. Code, § 3455, subd. (d)).

Postrelease community supervision is akin to a grant of probation. Accordingly, we are guided by the principles governing probation revocation hearings. The standard of proof in a probation revocation proceeding is proof b y a preponderance
of the evidence. Trial courts ha ve broad discretion in determining whether probationer s4

ha ve violated probation. ( People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766 , 773.) The substantial evidence test is the proper standard for appellate revie w of a judgment following a probation revocation hearing where the appellant claims the evidence was
insufficient. ( People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848.)

The record reflects Wade was advised one of the terms of his community
release was that he not change his residence without first notifying his probation officer.
Wade was order ed to reside at the Phoenix House . He entered t he program on December 20, 2013, and was last seen at th e program o n January 6, 2014. In February, Wade was
arrested by an out

- of

- county agency. Wade failed to notify Grantham of his whereabouts after leaving the program. Substantial evidenc e supports the court’s finding Wade violated his post release community supervision.

In addition to considering the Anders iss ue noted by counsel, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and
Anders . We find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, J.

FYBEL, J.