People v. Gower CA4/2 ( 2022 )

Filed 9/30/22 P. v. Gower CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E078792
v. (Super.Ct.No. BPR2200081)
ROBERT GOWER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sylwia Luttrell,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A trial court found that defendant and appellant Robert Gower violated his parole
by failing to report to his assigned parole agent and failing to wear a Global Positioning
System (GPS) device.
1
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1996, defendant was convicted of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a
child under the age of 14. As a result, he was required to register as a sex offender. On
August 23, 2016, he was convicted of a violation of Penal Code1 290.018, subdivision (b)
(willfully violating the sex offender registration requirements under section 290) and was
sentenced to serve two years eight months in state prison. After serving one year nine
months of his sentence, he was released on parole on May 12, 2018.
Defendant signed a Notice of Conditions of Parole and Special Conditions of
Parole, acknowledging that he was required to participate in GPS monitoring and that he
was required to report to his parole agent within one business day of being released from
custody. He was subsequently found in violation of his parole and served time in custody
multiple times.
After serving time on one of his parole revocations, defendant was released from
the Riverside County Jail on January 31, 2022. He was given instructions to report to the
Riverside Parole office by February 1, 2022, in order to have a GPS device affixed to his
person. Defendant failed to report to his assigned parole agent by February 1, 2022. His
parole agent attempted to locate him, but was unable to. His agent eventually learned
that defendant was arrested on February 21, 2022. At the time he was arrested, defendant
was not wearing a GPS device.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
2
A petition for revocation of parole was filed on February 25, 2022. At the parole
revocation hearing, defendant’s parole agent testified that he reviewed the Notice and
Conditions of Parole and Special Conditions of Parole with defendant. He testified that
every time individuals were released from custody, they were reminded of their
requirements, and that defendant was aware he was required to report to the parole office
one day after being released, and that he was required to wear a GPS tracking device.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and the following potential arguable issue: whether the evidence supported the
trial court’s finding that defendant violated his parole. Counsel has also requested this
court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
4