People v. Chapman CA5

Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Chapman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070758 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RF006229A) v.

ROBERT DEWEY CHAPMAN III, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge.

Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

Robert Dewey Chapman III appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court found he had violated the terms of his probation and sentenced him to prison. We find no error in the record and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In 2011, Chapman pled no contest to one count of inflicting corporal injury on his spouse resulting in a traumatic condition and was placed on probation for three years.1 In 2014, Chapman was alleged to have violated his probation. The probation declaration letter asserted Chapman violated the terms of probation by failing to report to his probation officer on a monthly basis and by harassing the victim, his wife. A hearing was held on the violation of probation petition. The wife testified to her contacts with Chapman, which might best be described as alcohol-fueled confrontations. Chapman’s probation officer testified Chapman had failed to report for his monthly meetings. Chapman testified in his defense and asserted his wife initiated all contact with him, and he had not harassed her. Chapman did not address the allegation that he had failed to report to the probation officer as directed. The trial court found Chapman had violated his probation and sentenced him to three years in prison. The trial court specifically found the wife’s testimony was more credible than Chapman’s. DISCUSSION Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asserting he could not identify any arguable issues in the case. By letter dated June 5, 2015, we invited Chapman to inform us of any issues he wished addressed in this appeal. Chapman did not respond to our invitation.