Court Opinion

ID: 9882312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 18:03:54.324088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:58.309953
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/5/23 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097501

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. CS202259)

           v.

 BRANDON ALLAN CLARK,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Allen Clark filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks 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 errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                      FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
       In July 2020, defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code sections 29800,
subdivision (a)(1), 22210, and Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). He was
released on post-release community supervision in August 2020. His supervision was
scheduled to expire in January 2024.
       Defendant repeatedly violated the terms of his release. In November 2022, the
probation department filed a petition for revocation alleging three violations of the
condition of his release: 1) failing to submit to a search; 2) failing to abstain from
possession of illegal drugs; and 3) threatening, harassing, or annoying a protected person.
The trial court summarily revoked supervision and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial
court found the first two allegations true. The trial court sentenced defendant to 120 days
in jail, and awarded him 37 days of presentence credits. Defendant timely appealed.

                                        DISCUSSION
       Appointed 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. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant
was advised by counsel of his 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 errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the
judgment.

                                              2
                            DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

                                     HULL, J.

We concur:

EARL, P. J.

ROBIE, J.

                                 3