People v. Taylor CA1/5

Filed 2/17/15 P. v. Taylor CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A142540 v. DIONN NOVELL TAYLOR, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR300957) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Dionn Novell Taylor’s probation was revoked, reinstated, and modified following a contested hearing.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 have reviewed the entire record, find no arguable issues, and affirm. BACKGROUND In September 2013, appellant pled no contest to threatening a witness. (Pen. Code, § 140, subd. (a).)1 The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on

1 All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

formal probation for three years. One of the conditions of his probation was that he obey all laws. Appellant was subsequently rearrested and a revocation hearing was held in May 2014. Brandee Robinson, appellant’s San Francisco probation officer, testified to the following.2 On January 2, 2014, Robinson was at a ticket machine at the Civic Center BART station. Appellant came up from behind her and stood very close to her. He asked why she had not returned his calls. Robinson testified appellant had left her a message saying he would report to the office the next day. Robinson told appellant she had received his message and he should come to her office the next day. Appellant continued to talk to Robinson, telling her he wanted her to replace his clothes. Robinson explained at the hearing that when appellant was originally released, probation provided him with a room at a hotel. In October 2013, Robinson checked this room because he had not been reporting to probation, and discovered the room was empty. The manager told her appellant had taken his things and left. As a result, Robinson released the room to be given to someone else. At the BART station, Robinson again told appellant to come to her office the next day to discuss it. Appellant continued to demand they talk right away. Robinson was concerned for her safety because appellant was being “real[ly] aggressive” and the BART station was mostly empty. Robinson was unable to purchase a ticket at the machines. She went to a station agent booth but found it empty, so she walked to a second booth. Appellant followed Robinson as she walked, continuing to be very aggressive, and “every once in [a] while his fist would ball up.” As they walked, appellant told her “he should have followed me all the way home to Oakland. He should have stalked me.” Robinson understood this to mean “[t]hat he was going to stalk me and follow me home or hurt me in some type of way.” At the second booth, Robinson was told to walk to a third booth about a block away. Appellant continued to follow her and told her he was following her to show her