P. v. Brooks














Filed 4/4/17 P. v. Brooks CA1/3






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHARLES HARDEN BROOKS,
Defendant and Appellant.


A149173

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. 00809PA)


Defendant Charles Harden Brooks appeals from an order finding him in violation of the terms of his parole.Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel was unable to find any arguable issues for reversal on appeal and asking this court to independently review the record for error. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.We have reviewed the entire record and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues that warrant further briefing.
Background
In 1991, defendant was convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and sentenced to a term of 15 years to life in prison.Defendant was released on parole on June 9, 2014.
On June 9, 2016, defendant’s parole agent filed a petition for revocation of defendant’s parole based on his use of cocaine. At the hearing on the petition,the parole agent testified that on May 15, 2016, a urine test administered to defendant by Volunteers of Americashowed a positive result for the presence of cocaine. She testified further that on May 31, 2016, she personally administered a urinalysis test which also returned a positive result for the presence of cocaine. Asked whether he wanted the urine sample sent to the laboratory for confirmation of the finding, defendant signed a statement “freely admit[ting]” use and possession of cocaine.
Defendant opposed the petition, arguing that his signed statement was involuntary. He also challenged the admission of the May 15, 2016 test resultsunder the confrontation and due process clauses of the United States Constitution.The court rejected defendant’s arguments and found thatdefendant had violated the terms of his parole. The court referred defendant to the Board of Prison Hearings as required by the terms of his parole.
Discussion
The testimony of the parole officer fully supportsthe trial court’s finding that defendant voluntarily signed the May 31 statement admitting he had used cocaine. The record contains no evidence to the contrary.Because the parole agent’s testimony regarding defendant’s positive test result on May 31 and defendant’s admission provide substantial evidence supporting the finding that defendant violated the conditions of his parole, it is not necessary to consider the admissibility of the laboratory report regarding the May 15 test. Defendant was represented by competent counsel throughout the proceedings.
Disposition
The order finding defendant in violation of the terms of his parole and referring him to the Board of Prison Hearings is affirmed.


Pollak, J.

We concur:

McGuiness, P.J.
Jenkins, J.



Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com