Court Opinion

ID: 9411964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 17:04:36.847464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:21.524294
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/28/23 P. v. Findlay CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                         (Yolo)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097106

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. Nos. CR20210116,
                                                                                 CR20211938, CR20213606)
           v.

 SANDER IAN FINDLAY,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Sander Ian Findlay has asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Having conducted this review of the record, we
will affirm the judgment.
                                               I. BACKGROUND
         Defendant was granted probation in three separate cases, case Nos. CR20210116
(first case), CR20211938 (second case), and CR20213606 (third case).

                                                             1
       In the first case, in July 2021, defendant was convicted of three counts of stalking
and one count of disturbing the peace. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence
and placed defendant on two years’ formal probation. That grant of probation was
revoked later that month after defendant committed the offense for which he was
convicted in the second case, carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. Following defendant’s
conviction in the second case, in December 2021, the trial court again granted him
probation and reinstated probation in the first case. Later that month, defendant’s grant
of probation was again revoked after he committed the offense for which he was
convicted in the third case, again carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. Following
defendant’s conviction in the third case, in April 2022, the trial court again granted him
probation and reinstated probation in the first and second cases. Probation in the three
cases was revoked and reinstated one more time before the probation revocation
proceedings at issue in this appeal.
       In July 2022, probation violation declarations were filed in the three cases,
alleging defendant violated his grant of probation by engaging in disorderly conduct on
two separate occasions. A contested probation violation hearing was held the following
month. Evidence adduced at the hearing established that on the first occasion, defendant
brought a bottle of vodka into a restaurant in Woodland, drank out of the bottle while
inside the restaurant, and refused to leave. When police contacted defendant, he was in
the parking lot the restaurant shared with other businesses, including a Walmart.
Defendant was clearly intoxicated, his belongings were scattered on the ground, and he
was gesturing with his hands towards the people who were walking in and out of
Walmart, imitating firing a gun at them. On the second occasion, defendant entered the
backyard of a family in Davis without permission. He was lying down on a bench in the
backyard with one hand in his pants when one of the residents saw him. Defendant then
got up and peered into the house before leaving the backyard. He was contacted by
police two or three blocks from the house and admitted going into the backyard.

                                             2
       After hearing the evidence, the trial court found with respect to the first occasion
that defendant was intoxicated at a public place and unable to care for himself, in
violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f). With respect to the second
occasion, the trial court found that defendant was loitering, prowling, or wandering upon
the property of another without a lawful purpose for being on the property, in violation of
Penal Code section 647, subdivision (h), and while doing so, peered into an inhabited
dwelling, in violation of subdivision (i) of that section. Based on these probation
violations, the trial court revoked defendant’s grant of probation in the three cases.
       At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to the
upper term of three years for carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (third case) “based on
the circumstances that were proven in aggravation” in that case, plus a consecutive term
of eight months (one-third the middle term) for stalking (first case), for a total
determinate prison term of three years eight months. The trial court also awarded
custody credits, the calculation and breakdown of which need not be recited.
                                     II. DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than
30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable
error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

                                              3
                                  III. DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                     /S/

                                             RENNER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/S/

KRAUSE, J.

/S/

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                         4