P. v. McClain
Filed 3/8/13 P. v. McClain CA4/2
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM KEITH McCLAIN,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E057026
(Super.Ct.No. RIF1101330)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior
Court of
County. Michael S.
Hider, Judge. (Retired judge of the
Merced Super. Ct. assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal.
Const.) Affirmed.
James R. Bostwick,
Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On June 16, 2011,
defendant and appellant William Keith McClain pled guilty to possession of
ammunition as a person prohibited from owning a firearm under Penal Code
section 12316, subdivision (b)(1). In
accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court imposed a
two-year sentence in state prison.
Execution of the prison sentence was suspended and defendant was placed
on probation for 36 months. Two of the
probationary terms included: “Obey all
laws, ordinances, and court ordersâ€; and “Do not knowingly own, possess or have
control of any firearm, deadly weapon or ammunition.â€
On August 9, 2011,
the district attorney filed a petition to find defendant in violation of his
probation on the ground that he possessed ammunition in violation of Penal Code
section 12316, subdivision (b)(1). The
matter was continued numerous times. On
July 9, 2012, the trial court granted the district attorney’s request to amend
the petition to add the allegation that defendant had also violated the
probationary term that he not knowingly own, possess, or have under his control
a firearm, deadly weapon, or ammunition.
At the conclusion of the July
16, 2012 revocation hearing, the trial court found that defendant
had violated both terms.
On August 17, 2012, the trial court
ordered execution of the previously suspended two-year
21, 2012, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the contested
probation violation.
I
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On July 14, 2011, Riverside County
Deputy Sheriff Cox participated in a probation search of defendant’s home in El
Cerrito, Riverside County. She
personally searched defendant’s bedroom, including a dresser. In the second from the top dresser drawer,
Deputy Cox found a live .22 caliber bullet.
A wallet located next to the bullet contained defendant’s driver’s
license. In the same bedroom, the deputy
also found a “bow†behind the door.
Senior Probation Officer Doty was
also present during the search of defendant’s residence. He testified that a motorcycle parked near
the house was registered to defendant.
Defendant admitted to Officer Doty that he was using the bedroom where
the bullet was found. The officer saw
the bow at the residence but did not seize it.
Catherine Clements testified that she
had a date with defendant shortly after July 4, 2011. During their date, they walked about two
blocks from defendant’s house. Clements
likes to collect rocks. During the walk,
she picked up some rocks and a bullet.
She returned with defendant to his residence and watched a movie. After defendant fell asleep, she put the
rocks and the bullet in his dresser drawer, and then left. This was their one and only date. About a month before the hearing, defendant
contacted Clements at a restaurant. He
was upset and told her that it was her fault he was in trouble because she had
placed a bullet in his dresser drawer.
Defendant testified that he makes a
living running a tree trimming and removal business. He acknowledged that he was on probation for
possession of ammunition. He did not
know the bullet was in his dresser and had never seen it. He would not knowingly have had a
bullet. The bow did not belong to
him. It belonged to one of his
roommates.
II
ANALYSIS
After 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, a summary of the
facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a
review of the entire record.
We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. 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
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting
P.J.
We
concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
