People v. Wilson CA2/8

Filed 9/17/15 P. v. Wilson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B262167

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 4PH07778-01) v.

GEOFFREY FITZGERALD WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark G. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.

Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Geoffrey Wilson appeals from the court’s order revoking and restoring his parole following a contested parole revocation hearing. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we provide a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. In 2002, appellant was convicted of rape “by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury.” (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2).) Appellant’s three-year period of supervision began in December 2012. Among his conditions of parole were that he not engage in conduct prohibited by law and that he report to, enroll in, and actively participate in a sex offender treatment program. In November 2014, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Adult Parole Operations, filed a petition for revocation of appellant’s parole. The petition alleged appellant had disturbed the peace in violation of Penal Code section 415 and had failed to actively participate in out-patient sex offender treatment. In brief, the following evidence was adduced at the contested revocation hearing. Appellant attended group counseling for sex offenders. The group members were supposed to be working on a relapse prevention plan. Appellant refused to participate. He told the therapist leading the group something along the lines of, “I didn’t commit any crimes, I don’t belong here and I don’t need to do this.” The therapist described him as uncooperative, argumentative, very oppositional, and defiant. He “sat there with clenched fists.” He used a raised voice with the therapist and talked over her, and there was so much arguing that the other group members became restless and showed signs of being anxious. He was argumentative with other group members when they told him to participate. This went on for “a few minutes.” The therapist excused him from the group to take a “cooling off period” and said he could return afterward. She asked him to step out approximately 35 to 40 minutes after the group session started. Appellant did so and