People v. Morgan CA1/5

Filed 5/14/14 P. v. Morgan CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139715 v. DEONTE DESHAWE MORGAN, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR201249) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Deonte Deshawe Morgan’s probation was revoked, reinstated, and modified following a contested hearing. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm. BACKGROUND In September 2009, appellant entered no contest pleas to two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). He was sentenced to four years in state prison, with imposition of sentence suspended and a three year grant of probation. Conditions of probation included

1

the following: “Report all arrests, citations, or violations of law, within 48 hours to the probation officer” and “Report to and comply with all orders of the probation officer.”1 Appellant’s probation officer testified at the revocation hearing that she orally told him “to report police contact.” She testified she “standardly inform[s] [probationers] if they’re calling the police because they see a fire and they have contact that way, no I don’t need to hear that. If it’s police contact in relation to them for their behavior, I need to hear about it.” In February 2013, a police officer conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle with a cover over its license plate. The vehicle had four occupants; appellant was one of the passengers. During a search of the vehicle, the officer found a handgun in the vehicle’s trunk. The officer detained all four occupants and interviewed them to determine the ownership of the gun; all disavowed any knowledge of it. During the investigation, which took 53 minutes and involved three officers, appellant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. Upon completion of the investigation, appellant and the others were released without citation. Appellant did not report this incident to his probation officer. At the revocation hearing, appellant argued the requirement to report police contact was not an explicit term of his probation and could not validly be made a term of his probation. The trial court disagreed, finding appellant violated a “lawful term of his probation” that he “report interaction with members of law enforcement to his probation officer,” and revoked his probation. Appellant subsequently moved to set aside the revocation order, arguing the probation officer was not authorized to modify the probation conditions, the added condition was overbroad, and the violation was not willful. The trial court denied the motion, stating: “The defendant and the others were detained for 53 minutes. Clearly, this is the kind of situation that’s contemplated when probation is trying to supervise a