People v. Wade CA4/3

Filed 11/14/14 P. v. Wade CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050014

v. (Super. Ct. No. R00292)

JEFFEREY LEE WADE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, W. Michael Hayes, Judge. Affirmed. Dawn S. Mortazavi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Jefferey Lee Wade on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. Wade was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and he did not file a brief. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The Wende court explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Wade did not file a supplemental brief. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel provided the court with information as to one issue that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel questioned whether there was sufficient evidence to find Wade had violated his postrelease community supervision. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. FACTS Orange County Deputy Probation Officer Rodney Grantham was assigned to provide Wade postrelease community supervision. Wade was indoctrinated regarding the terms and conditions of his postrelease community supervision. He was told he needed to notify his probation officer in advance of a change of residence and any anticipated change of residence. As part of his supervision, Grantham directed Wade to go to the Phoenix House Residential Drug Treatment Program (Phoenix House). Wade entered the program on December 20, 2013. Grantham visited Wade while he was in residence at the Phoenix House on January 6, 2014. After that date, Gratham was at the Phoenix House to see other parolees under his supervision but never saw Wade there.