People v. Washington CA1/1

Filed 3/30/22 P. v. Washington CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163045

v. (Mendocino County JONATHAN ARI WASHINGTON, Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR- 19-32753-001) Defendant and Appellant.

Following a bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of escape while on work program and found the enhancement allegations true. The court imposed a total sentence of four years. As required under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we note counsel for defendant has filed a Wende1 brief raising no arguable issues, counsel apprised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and defendant did not file such a brief. Upon review of the record for potential error, we find no arguable issues warranting reversal and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Lieutenant Roy Ulatan, a peace officer and camp commander at Chamberlain Creek Conservation Camp, which houses state prisoners, testified that in 2019, defendant was a prisoner housed at the camp.

1 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

According to Ulatan, during a “count of the inmate population,” on September 13, 2019, it was discovered defendant was missing. Though defendant was present at the “morning count,” Officer Brewer informed Ulatan that defendant was missing at the “lunch count.” Defendant was subsequently rearrested by special agents from Ulatan’s department in an apartment complex in Vallejo. He was not authorized to be in Vallejo. The lieutenant noted that when defendant arrived at the camp, he was informed of the camp boundaries and that if defendant went beyond the boundaries, he would be charged with escape. Ulatan, did not, however, personally conduct the orientation at which the boundaries of the camp were explained to defendant, did not know who did the orientation, and was never told defendant received the orientation. Nonetheless, orientation is standard procedure, and every inmate has an orientation. Ulatan explained the camp could hold up to 100 inmates, but when defendant went missing, the number of inmates would not have been over 80. The lieutenant did not know how long defendant had been at the camp before September 13, however, he recognized him from daily interactions, when he walked the camp, and from morning counts during breakfast, and the “count board.”2 An amended information filed on December 9, 2020, charged defendant with one count of escape while on work program. (Pen. Code,3 § 4530, subd. (b).) The information further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, 1170.12), was released from custody on his