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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 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.

JEFFEREY 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 Orange 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 Jefferey 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 court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. Wade was given

30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, 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 independent review of the entire record. When 

the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly 

address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006)

40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Wade did not file a supplemental 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 there was sufficient evidence to find Wade had violated his 

postrelease community supervision. We have reviewed the 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 was assigned 

to provide Wade postrelease community supervision. Wade was indoctrinated regarding 

the terms and conditions of his postrelease community supervision. He was told he 

needed to notify his probation officer in advance of a change of residence and any 

anticipated change of residence. 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 Wade while he was in 

residence at the Phoenix House on January 6, 2014. After that date, Gratham was at the 

Phoenix House to see other parolees 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 attempted 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 notified Grantham of a 

change of address. On February 7, 2014, a warrant was 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 postrelease 

community supervision. The petition alleged Wade violated his postrelease community 

supervision by failing to report a change of residence and traveling more than 50 miles 

from his residence without prior approval. The petition alleged Wade was discharged

from Phoenix House and 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 postrelease 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 filed 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 by a preponderance 

of the evidence. Trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether probationers
4

have violated probation. (People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 773.) The 

substantial evidence test is the proper standard for appellate review 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 ordered to reside at the Phoenix House. He entered the program on December 

20, 2013, and was last seen at the program on 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 evidence supports the court’s finding Wade 

violated his postrelease community supervision. 

In addition to considering the Anders issue 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.