People v. Rogers CA3

Filed 8/18/22 P. v. Rogers CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095941

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-F- DV-2021-12273) v.

MICHAEL ANGELO ROGERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Angelo Rogers filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record, we have found a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. We will direct correction of that clerical error and affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND In early 2021, defendant was serving a three-year prison sentence for stalking. A correctional officer received notice defendant had violated a restraining order. Upon a search of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s records, the officer found defendant had attempted to call the victim 21 times and one of those calls connected. An audiotape of that call was played for the trial court. The officer contacted the victim. She informed the officer she was previously in an abusive relationship with defendant that had ended. She described the abuse as physical and told the officer defendant had harassed her after the relationship ended. The victim said she had received many calls from the prison and she answered the one call to tell defendant to stop contacting her. The victim reported defendant said it is “going to be all bad for her” upon his release from custody and she interpreted this as a threat. The victim told the officer she was in fear for her life from defendant. She reported defendant had previously appeared at her work with a firearm and threatened her and her family’s lives. In addition to the phone calls, defendant sent numerous letters to her and her son. The letters were not threatening, but she perceived them as harassing. The officer interviewed defendant. Defendant admitted making the phone calls and sending the letters. He also admitted he made the statements in the phone call and he was aware of the criminal protective order against him and in favor of the victim. The second amended information charged defendant with stalking (count 1) and alleged that: there was an existing restraining order in place; defendant engaged in violent conduct; he had a prior domestic violence felony conviction; he had served a prior term in county jail or prison; and his performance on probation, under supervision, or on parole, was unsatisfactory. (Penal Code, §§ 646.9, subds. (a), (b), & (c)(2), 1170, subd.