Filed 6/27/17 P. v. Williams CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PATRICK D. WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant. B278968

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 6PH07104)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________


In 2016, Patrick D. Williams was on parole for a conviction for a robbery that involved the battery of a female victim. Among his parole conditions were that he complete a batterers program, not engage in conduct prohibited by law, and immediately inform his parole agent of his arrest for any felony or misdemeanor. He was advised that prohibited conduct might cause his parole to be revoked with or without a criminal conviction.
On September 20, 2016, Williams was arguing with Lawala Hawkins outside their car when Los Angeles Police Officers arrived. The officers arrested Williams after Hawkins alleged he hit her.
After Hawkins reported Williams’s arrest to his parole agent, the Division of Adult Parole Operations of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DAPO) filed a petition for revocation of his parole, alleging he violated the terms and conditions of parole when he (1) failed to inform DAPO of his criminal arrest; (2) engaged in criminal conduct; and (3) failed to participate in or complete a batterer’s program.
At the parole revocation hearing, the trial court found Williams violated the terms and conditions of his parole by engaging in criminal conduct and failing to participate in or complete a batterer’s program. The court revoked his parole and reinstated it with the modification that Williams serve 190 days in county jail, less a credit of 80 days, and stay away from Hawkins and her daughter.
Williams appealed on November 10, 2016. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal and, after examination of the record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) On February 10, 2017, we sent letters to Williams and appointed counsel, directing counsel to immediately forward the appellate record to Williams and advising Williams that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. He has not responded.
We have examined the entire record and find no arguable issue exists. We are therefore satisfied that Williams’s attorney complied with her responsibilities. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.



CHANEY, J.

We concur:



ROTHSCHILD, P. J.



LUI, J.