People v. Bowling CA3

Filed 6/27/16 P. v. Bowling CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079509

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR142009)

v.

ERIK BRYAN BOWLING,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. While on felony probation for stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)), defendant Erik Bryan Bowling was detained by police after a woman in a department store reported that defendant was “stalking” her and her child around the store. Defendant failed to report the police contact to probation. Probation officers had informed defendant of the requirement that he report all police contact to the probation officer within 48 hours (later modified to within 24 hours). When the probation officer learned that defendant had been contacted by police but had not reported it, she went to defendant’s home six days after the contact and asked him about it. He stated that he was scared to report it and apologized for not doing so.

1

After a contested hearing, the court found that defendant violated probation. On May 28, 2015, the court reinstated defendant on probation with 90 days in jail after defendant waived prior credits pursuant to People v. Johnson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1050. Defendant appeals from the May 2015 order. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment (order modifying and reinstating probation) is affirmed.