People v. Williams CA1/5

Filed 1/20/21 P. v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A160969 v. (Sonoma County INDUGO ASIFA WILLIAMS, Super. Ct. No. PRL-201806-1)

Defendant and Appellant.

Indugo Asifa Williams appeals from an order finding he violated various conditions of his parole, reinstating parole, and imposing a jail sentence. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (f).) His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Williams is not entitled to a Wende review in a post-conviction proceeding. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 500-501 (Serrano).) Even assuming Wende does apply here, we affirm because his appeal presents no meritorious arguable issues. BACKGROUND In 2019, Williams was under parole supervision. He agreed to parole conditions, including continuous electronic monitoring and prohibitions on tampering with his monitoring device. He was also required to participate in

1

treatment for sex offenders and prohibited from traveling more than 50 miles away from his residence in San Francisco without prior approval from his parole agent. In June 2020, Williams traveled to Santa Rosa, cut off his monitoring device, and threw it away. The next day, after his damaged monitoring device was located and his parole agent enlisted the assistance of the Santa Rosa police department, Williams was ultimately taken into custody. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed a petition to revoke Williams’ parole. After a September 2020 hearing on the petition, the trial court found Williams violated his parole conditions, ordered Williams reinstated on parole, and modified the terms to include 180 days in county jail. DISCUSSION Williams’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende and its federal constitutional counterpart in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744- 745, listing two potentially arguable questions supporting an appeal: whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding Williams “acted willfully when he absconded from San Francisco, damaged his GPS device, and failed to attend the required sex offender classes,” and whether the trial court properly found Williams absconded. Counsel informed Williams of his right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, which he has not done. A.