People v. McEachron CA4/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 9/27/23 P. v. McEachron 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E081361
v. (Super.Ct.No. FELVS2200010)
BILLY McEACHRON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shannon Faherty,
Judge. Affirmed.
Billy McEachron, in pro. per.; and Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
A petitioner convicted of a sex offense requiring sex offender registration must
continuously reside in California for a minimum period of 10 years before filing a
petition to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation. (Pen. Code, §§ 4852.03, subd. (a)(2)(A),
4852.06; unlabeled statutory references are to this code.) Billy Ray McEachron’s petition
for a certificate of rehabilitation was denied on the ground that he did not satisfy the
residency requirement. McEachron appeals, and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In October 2022, McEachron filed a petition under sections 4852.01 and 4852.06
for a certificate of rehabilitation from a 2010 felony conviction under section 69. In the
petition, McEachron stated that he had continuously resided in California since July
2022. McEachron listed four additional felony convictions he sustained from 1982 to
2003, including a conviction in 2003 under section 243.4, subdivision (a), for sexual
battery. A person convicted of a felony under section 243.4 is subject to a lifetime sex
offender registration requirement. (§ 290, subds. (c)(1), (d)(3)(J).)
McEachron authorized the district attorney’s office to investigate his record and
character. McEachron filled out a questionnaire from the district attorney’s office in
which he provided a residence address in California, where he stated that he was living
for a monthly rental payment. Asked to identify where he had resided since being
released from prison, McEachron answered, “unknown [d]isabled unable to recall.”
An investigator from the district attorney’s office interviewed McEachron. The
investigator told McEachron that he had found addresses in Arizona associated with
McEachron. McEachron confirmed that he lived with his sister in Arizona for two to
2
four years before July 2022 and that he lived somewhere else in Arizona for the month of
August 2022. McEachron moved to California in September 2022 for the purpose of
filing the petition for a certificate of rehabilitation. McEachron showed the investigator a
valid driver’s license from Arizona, with an expiration date in 2025 and a residence
address for McEachron in Arizona. The investigator recommended that the court deny
the petition because McEachron had not continuously resided in California for the
minimum required period under section 4852.06.
Appointed counsel for McEachron filed a memorandum of points and authorities
in support of the petition. Counsel argued that McEachron had been unhoused since his
release from prison and that “McEachron is and has been a resident of California for five
years prior[] to the filing.” (Boldface, capitalization, and underlining omitted.) No
evidence concerning McEachron’s housing status was submitted with the memorandum.
The trial court denied the petition because McEachron had not lived in California
for 10 years before filing the petition.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent McEachron on appeal, and counsel filed a brief
under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738, asking us to conduct an independent review of the record. We gave McEachron the
opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, advising him that we would evaluate
any specific arguments he presented in that brief and that failure to file such a brief could
result in dismissal of this appeal. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232-233.)
3
McEachron filed a supplemental brief. He does not raise any arguments
concerning the trial court’s determination that McEachron has not lived in California for
the minimum statutory period necessary to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation.
(§§ 4852.03, subd. (a)(2)(A), 4852.06.) McEachron instead provides an account of the
facts of his life in general and the events that transpired before and after the conviction
that caused him to be required to register as a sex offender. McEachron does not provide
any citation to the record to support his factual assertions, and in any event none of the
facts is relevant to the court’s denial of his petition for a certificate of rehabilitation,
which was based entirely on the 10-year residency requirement. Because McEachron
does not present any legal argument capable of showing that the trial court prejudicially
erred by denying the petition, we affirm the trial court’s order.
DISPOSITION
The May 5, 2023, order denying McEachron’s petition for a certificate of
rehabilitation is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4