Court Opinion

ID: 9378872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 21:02:22.211768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:15.031053
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/13/23 P. v. Clark 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                    C096532

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. No. CS2022-00007)

           v.

 BRANDON ALLAN CLARK,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Allan Clark 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.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
        In January 2021, defendant was released on postrelease community supervision
(PRCS) in case No. 16722.1 His PRCS conditions included reporting to the probation
officer as directed, not engaging in illegal activity, and abstaining from the use or
possession of illegal drugs or narcotics.
        In April 2022, a petition for revocation of PRCS was filed alleging defendant
(1) violated the law in January 2022 by soliciting prostitution, possessing a controlled
substance, and possessing drug paraphernalia; (2) failed to report to the probation officer
as directed in January 2022; (3) tested positive for methamphetamine in February and
March 2022; and (4) was arrested in April 2022 for unlawfully possessing a stun gun
(Pen. Code, § 22610, subd. (a)), possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11364), and driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1) (all
charges were misdemeanors). This was defendant’s fourth violation of PRCS.
        During the May 2022 evidentiary hearing, the probation officer testified defendant
did not come to the probation office as agreed in January 2022. He also failed to notify
the probation officer about his arrest in January or April 2022. In addition, defendant
tested positive for methamphetamine in February and March 2022. He enrolled himself
in an outpatient drug treatment program but was discharged from the program before he
completed it.
        A police detective testified defendant replied to a police-posted online
advertisement and arranged to meet and pay for sex in a local hotel. Defendant was met
at the hotel by police officers. An officer searched defendant and his car and found what
appeared to be a bag of methamphetamine and a pipe.

1   Case No. 16722 is not at issue in this appeal.

                                               2
       The trial court found defendant had violated PRCS and imposed 150 days in jail,
with 180 days stayed.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the
opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from
defendant.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                      /s/
                                                  BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

   /s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.

   /s/
DUARTE, J.

                                              3