People v. Wilson CA5

Filed 1/22/15 P. v. Wilson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F067960 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CF96564911) v.

BUDDY WILSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. Simpson, Judge.

Robert Cervantes for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION In 1997, defendant Buddy Wilson was placed on formal probation following a conviction for a violation of Penal Code1 section 288a, subdivision (k).2 Some 16 years later, he filed a motion for relief pursuant to section 1203.4. The petition was denied. On appeal, Wilson contends he has met all of the statutory conditions entitling him to relief because he fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire probationary period. Further, he argues the trial court failed to properly consider his postprobationary conduct. In response, the People argue Wilson has failed to make a record suitable for appellate review, and thus contend the trial court’s ruling should be affirmed. We agree with the People and will affirm. RELEVANT BACKGROUND Following a jury trial and resulting conviction for a violation of section 288a, subdivision (k), Wilson was granted probation. The probationary period commenced May 30, 1997, and expired June 30, 2002. On May 3, 2013, Wilson filed a motion for relief pursuant to section 1203.4. On May 17, 2013, the parties appeared for a hearing on the motion. The matter was taken under submission and continued to June 7, 2013. On June 7, following stipulation of the parties, the court continued the matter to July 9, 2013. On July 1, 2013, the motion was denied and the July 9 hearing date was vacated. On August 30, 2013, Wilson filed a notice of appeal. On September 19, 2013, a notice of completion of the clerk’s transcript on appeal was filed with the Fresno Superior Court.