People v. Messer CA1/5

Filed 3/21/24 P. v. Messer CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A168687 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-755090-1) KORY WAYNE MESSER, Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Kory Wayne Messer appeals from a judgment following his admission to violating the terms of his probation. Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has filed two supplemental briefs. We have reviewed the record and appellant’s briefs, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

1

BACKGROUND In September 2022, appellant pled no contest to child abduction (Pen. Code,1 § 278) and violating a protective order (§ 273.6).2 According to the probation report, in June 2022 appellant went to the home of his estranged wife, who had a temporary domestic violence restraining order protecting her and their children from appellant, and attempted to take one of their children from her home. As part of the plea agreement, appellant also admitted two aggravating factors: numerous prior convictions and a prior prison term. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)–(3).) The written plea agreement reflected a maximum possible term of four years and stipulated that appellant’s sentence would be suspended and appellant would be granted probation to be released to a residential treatment program. In October 2022, the court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of four years (the upper term on the child abduction count (§ 278)), with no split sentence (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)). The court suspended execution of the sentence and placed appellant on three years’ probation. The terms of his probation provided he was to be released to a specified residential treatment program and was to complete programs as directed by that residential program and his probation officer. In January 2023, probation was summarily revoked following a report from appellant’s probation officer that appellant was discharged from the residential program “due to confrontational and aggressive behavior.”