California Court of Appeal Apr 10, 2025 No. E084363Unpublished
Filed 4/10/25 P. v. Sanders CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E084363
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB22001671)
TREVOR LUKE SANDERS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cheryl C. Kersey,
Judge. Affirmed.
Debbie Yen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Trevor Luke Sanders appeals from the six-year sentence he received for one count
of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 in violation of subdivision (a)
of Penal Code section 288. (Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.) We
1
appointed counsel to represent Sanders on appeal, and counsel filed an opening brief that
raised no issues and requested independent review of the record under People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. We affirm.
In June 2022, the People filed a felony complaint alleging that Sanders committed
one count of a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14. (§ 288,
subd. (a).) The People also alleged 18 circumstances in aggravation. Sanders pled no
contest, and the trial court suspended the imposition of his sentence, placed him on felony
probation for a period of three years following a 364-day term of confinement in county
jail, ordered that he register pursuant to section 290, and issued a 10-year stay-away
order. The court asked Sanders whether he understood and accepted the terms and
conditions of his probation, and Sanders responded, “Yes, sir.”
In March 2024, the People filed a petition to revoke Sanders’s probation, alleging
that he violated the following terms and conditions: (1) “Cooperate with the [p]robation
[o]fficer and follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer”; (2) “[n]ot own,
use, or possess any form of sexually explicit movie videos, material, or devices unless
recommended by a therapist and approved by the probation officer. Do not frequent any
establishments where such items are the primary item viewed or sold at such
establishments and do not utilize any sexually oriented telephone services”; and (3)
“Participate in and complete a [s]ex [o]ffender [t]reatment [p]rogram with a therapist
approv[ed] by the probation officer until you are successfully discharged from the
2
program and be responsible for all fees.” The petition alleged that when Sanders reported
to the probation office for his orientation, he reviewed the terms and conditions of his
probation, signed them, and said that he understood them. The petition also stated that
the probation office provided a copy of the forms that defined “Sexually Explicit
Material.”
At the probation revocation hearing in July 2024, the People called Probation
Officer Groce as a witness. Groce testified that Sanders was given a copy of the terms
and conditions of his probation and that Sanders attended an orientation for his probation.
Groce also said that Sanders signed a document explaining what “sexually explicit
material” is. Groce testified that when he conducted a probation search of Sanders’s
residence, Groce found “pictures of women, very provocative clothes and no clothing at
all” on Sanders’s phone and that those pictures were consistent with what was described
in Sanders’s probation terms as sexually explicit material. Groce also said that he could
not tell whether the people in the pictures were adults or minors but that some of them
appeared to be minors.
The People rested, and the court asked defense counsel whether Sanders was
going to testify. Counsel responded that the defense would not be presenting any
evidence. Counsel argued that there was no evidence that Sanders signed the terms and
conditions of his probation, “most” of Groce’s testimony was speculative, and there was
no evidence presented that the photographs were sexually explicit within the definition of
the probation terms.
3
The court revoked Sanders’s probation and imposed the following sentence: “The
defendant is sentenced to California State Prison for the middle term of six years for the
offense of lewd and lascivious acts with a child, in violation of [section] 288 (a) of the
Penal Code. The [c]ourt has recalculated your credits. At this time you have 304—I’m
sorry—305 actual to today’s date with [section] 4019 credits plus 304, so your total is
609 credits.”
Defense counsel then told that court that Sanders “is now saying that he never
waived his rights to testify.” Sanders was sworn in as a witness, and he told the court that
he was using social media to “find someone [his] own age” and “it wasn’t clear on what
was an actual violation.” He asked the court to “reinstate[ him] on probation” if he
“stay[ed] off the social media.” Following a brief cross-examination by the People, the
court stated: “I’m not going to modify your sentence. I think that sexually explicit
material on your phone, the volume of it as described and the nature of it does violate
your probation. So your sentence of six years stands.”
DISCUSSION
Sanders’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief identifying five potentially
arguable issues: (1) whether the probation conditions are unconstitutionally vague; (2)
whether the probation conditions are unconstitutionally overbroad; (3) whether the
probation conditions violate the First Amendment; (4) whether there was sufficient
evidence to support the trial court’s findings; and (5) whether the trial court abused its
discretion by revoking Sanders’s probation when it was his first probation violation, and
4
Sanders testified that he did not know that his behavior constituted a violation and offered
to refrain from using social media if the court would reinstate his probation. Counsel
asked that we conduct an independent review of the record. We advised Sanders that he
had 30 days to file a personal supplemental brief, and we received no response.
We have independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue that
would result in a disposition more favorable to Sanders. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
pp. 441-442.) Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's revocation of probation and imposition of a six-year prison sentence after finding no arguable issues upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether the probation conditions were unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, or violated the First Amendment.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of a probation violation.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue that would result in a disposition more favorable to Sanders.”