People v. Glover CA4/2 ( 2020 )

Filed 11/18/20 P. v. Glover 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E075105
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI18001638)
ROBERT ALLAN GLOVER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Debra Harris,
Judge. Affirmed.
Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Robert Allan Glover appeals from an order of the San
Bernardino Superior Court revoking his probation. We will affirm.
1
BACKGROUND
In June 2019, defendant entered a plea of no contest to a charge of vandalism of
property valued over $400 in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivision (b)(1).
The court sentenced him to three years in county prison, gave him credit for 180 days,
placed him on mandatory supervision, ordered his release from custody, and ordered him
to appear at the probation department on a specific date.
The following month, the People petitioned for a warrant for defendant’s arrest
and revocation of his mandatory supervision. They averred that defendant’s whereabouts
were unknown and that he had failed to comply with the court’s order to report to the
probation department. Efforts to locate him had not been successful because he had not
provided a current address, and the last telephone number defendant had provided was
answered by someone who denied knowing him.
At the conclusion of a March 2020 contested hearing on the petition, the court
ordered defendant’s mandatory supervision revoked.
Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s 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
statements of the case and facts, and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether the trial
court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay at the revocation hearing, and (2) whether
the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant a grant of mandatory supervision
2
after it was revoked. Counsel also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire
record.
When, in an indigent defendant’s first appeal of right, appointed appellate counsel
files an opening brief that does not present an arguable issue, it is well settled that the
appellate court is required to offer the defendant an opportunity to submit a personal
supplemental brief and to review the entire record whether or not the defendant files a
brief. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
We acknowledge People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal. App. 5th 1023, 1032, review
granted October 14, 2020, S264278, held the constitutional bases for Wende procedures
apply only to a defendant’s direct appeal from the judgment. We also recognize,
however, that we have discretion to exercise our inherent supervisory powers to apply
Wende procedures to appeals from denials of postconviction relief in which appointed
appellate counsel files a no-issues brief. (Cole, at pp. 1038-1039 [Second App. Dist.,
Div. Two, did not review the record and exercised discretion to dismiss the appeal as
abandoned when defendant did not file a supplemental brief]; People v. Flores (2020) 54
Cal. App. 5th 266, 269, 273-274 [Div. Three of this court exercised discretion to conduct
independent review of the record even though defendant did not file a supplemental
brief]; see generally Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 529, 544, fns. 7, 8
[court has inherent power to retain or dismiss an appeal from a conservatorship
proceeding upon receipt of a no-issues brief from appointed counsel].)
3
In this case, appointed appellate counsel filed a no-issues brief in an indigent
defendant’s appeal from orders made in a postconviction proceeding. We offered
defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We exercised our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record in keeping
with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106 and found no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
4