People v. Moten CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino · No. 24PA000471
- Trial judge
- Donna G. Garza
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court revoked Moten's parole based on a finding that he absconded from supervision after his GPS device failed and he failed to report to his parole officer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation order after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order revoking parole based on absconding“The court revoked Moten’s parole on the basis that he had absconded.” | substantial evidence | not reached | unsure The opinion states that counsel identified the issue of whether there was substantial evidence to show Moten violated parole by absconding, but the court concludes it found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal without explicitly analyzing the substantial evidence standard or the specific facts regarding the 13-day absence in the discussion section. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no issues are raised.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and request independent review by the court.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel appeals. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly apply the substantial evidence standard to the specific facts of the 13-day absence and GPS failure, instead relying on a blanket statement that no arguable issues were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Bernardino Superior Court revoked Aaron Jamal Moten's parole after finding he absconded from supervision when his GPS battery died and he failed to report, leaving his whereabouts unknown for 13 days, and sentenced him to 180 days in jail with credits. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Moten filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order revoking parole on the ground that Moten absconded from parole supervision“the court revoked Moten’s parole on the basis that he had absconded.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court The facts recited—GPS battery died two days after release, failure to report or contact the parole officer, and 13 days of unknown whereabouts—readily support a finding by a preponderance that Moten absconded, and the court conducted the independent review Wende requires. Nothing in the opinion suggests a procedural defect, and the People dropped the registration allegation, so the sole basis for revocation was supported. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issues exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is constitutionally required only in a defendant's first appeal of right from a conviction; in other postjudgment appeals the court need not conduct independent review but retains discretion to do so, and should notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed Wende and Anders, gave Moten notice of his right to file his own brief, reviewed the record, and affirmed a revocation that the recited facts plainly support. It did not address whether Wende review is even required in a parole revocation appeal under Delgadillo, though because it conducted full review anyway and gave the required notice, the omission does not affect the result.
Opinion
Filed 4/29/25 P. v. Moten CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D084503
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 24PA000471)
AARON JAMAL MOTEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino, Donna G. Garza, Judge. Affirmed. Tracy R. LeSage, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Aaron Jamal Moten appeals from an order revoking his parole. His appointed counsel filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We informed Moten of his right to personally file a brief, and he has not done so. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 16, 2022, Moten was convicted of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). He was released on parole on December 10, 2022, with a parole discharge date of February 6, 2026. Because of Moten’s prior conviction for indecent exposure, he was required to register as a sex offender (§ 290, subd. (c)) and comply with other special parole conditions for sex offenders. This included a requirement that he wear a GPS monitoring device. (§ 3010.10 [GPS monitoring is a required parole condition for a person required to register as a sex offender].) On April 27, 2024, Moten was released from custody following a parole violation. He was fitted with a GPS monitoring device and signed a Notice and Conditions of Parole and Special Conditions of Parole, which stated in part: “You shall charge the GPS device at least two times per day (every 12 hours) for at least 1 full hour for each charging times.” Two days later, on April 29, 2024, Moten’s parole officer was notified that Moten’s GPS battery had died. Moten also failed to report to or contact his parole officer as required. As a result, Moten’s whereabouts were unknown for 13 days. On May 16, 2024, the Division of Adult Parole Operations filed a petition to revoke Moten’s parole, alleging Moten violated the terms and conditions of parole by (1) absconding from parole supervision; (2) disabling his GPS tracking device; and (3) failing to register pursuant to section 290. Moten’s parole revocation hearing was held on June 13, 2024. At the beginning of the hearing, the People stated they would not be requesting to revoke parole based on Moten’s failure to register. Then, after hearing 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 testimony from Moten’s parole officer and arguments from counsel, the court revoked Moten’s parole on the basis that he had absconded. The court sentenced him to 180 days in jail with 34 days actual credit and 34 days of conduct credit. DISCUSSION Moten’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and statement of facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for error. Counsel identifies the following issue to assist the court in its review: Was there substantial evidence to show Moten violated the terms of his parole by absconding from parole supervision? We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Moten on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order revoking Moten’s parole is affirmed.
DO, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12