People v. Rogers CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079596 · 2022-04-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. PLAG3546
Trial judge: David M. Gill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), William S. Dato, Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:52Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Rogers's parole and imposed a 76-day custody sanction after finding he violated parole conditions by committing sexual battery. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Revocation of parole and imposition of 76-day custody sanction “At the end of the hearing, the court revoked parole and sentenced Rogers to 76 days of additional custody.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence) applied to the trial court's factual findings. It only states that the court reviewed the record and found no arguable issues.
Independent review of the record for error “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court performed its own independent review of the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders, concluding that no arguable issues for reversal existed.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record when counsel finds the appeal frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly state the standard of review applied to the underlying parole revocation decision, relying instead on a general statement that no arguable issues were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court, after an evidentiary hearing on a petition to revoke, found that Keith Rogers (a sex-offender parolee on GPS supervision) violated parole by committing a sexual battery on a sunbather at Pacific Beach, revoked parole, and imposed 76 days of additional custody. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying three possible issues, Rogers 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
Finding that Rogers violated the conditions of his parole, revocation of parole, and imposition of 76 days additional custody “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review rather than articulating a standard for any specific issue. The facts recited (victim's in-court, video, and field show-up identifications; GPS location data placing Rogers at the scene; no defense evidence) comfortably satisfy the preponderance standard for a parole violation, and 76 days is within the 180-day cap for parole revocation custody. Nothing in the opinion suggests error, though the opinion is too sparse to assess the first and third Anders issues (parole vs. PRCS placement; section 290 registration termination) on their merits.

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 for error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court but should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, adopts a factual summary, lists counsel's possible issues, and states that it reviewed the whole record, which is all the procedure requires; the recited facts show ample evidence of the parole violation. It does not explain why the three identified issues lack merit (as People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 contemplates courts may briefly do), does not address whether independent Wende review is even required in an appeal from a parole revocation order, and contains a minor misstatement referring to a petition to revoke 'probation' when the proceeding concerned parole.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/11/22 P. v. Rogers 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, D079596

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. PLAG3546)

KEITH L. ROGERS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed. Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2021, Keith L. Rogers was on parole for a sex offense and was under GPS supervision. Rogers committed a sexual battery and a petition to revoke probation was filed. An evidentiary hearing was held on the petition. At the end of the hearing, the court revoked parole and sentenced Rogers to 76 days of additional custody. Rogers filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Rogers the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has provided an accurate summary of the facts presented at the evidentiary hearing. We will adopt the statement of facts from the appellant’s brief. Prosecution Case California Department of Corrections Parole Agent Jose Barrientos was assigned to the Inland GPS unit supervising sex offenders on GPS supervision. Rogers is required to wear a GPS monitor and is on a five-year- period of parole. His parole has been revoked ten times, and Rogers was sanctioned for 180 days confinement on each occasion. On September 7, 2021, Cheyenne T. was sunbathing in a bikini on Pacific Beach. She felt something lightly touch her butt, turned, and saw a man with his face very close to her butt. She believed he kissed her butt. Cheyenne yelled at the man, telling him to leave her alone. He slowly walked away. She began to leave the beach but decided to stay after people said the man was no longer around. The man was very tall, short-haired, African American, wearing baggy clothes and carrying bags. At the hearing, Cheyenne identified Rogers as the man. Cheyenne reported the incident to San Diego Police. She later located surveillance video from a nearby house and provided this to a detective. Cheyenne identified Rogers as the person on the video. Later that afternoon, Cheyenne identified Rogers in a field show up.

2 San Diego Police Officer Jack Ester responded to a radio call regarding a suspected sexual battery; he was provided a location mapped by an ankle monitor and given a description of a tall African American male wearing baggy clothing and carrying a bag. Ester detained Rogers at the location. Defense Case There was no affirmative defense presented. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Was Rogers properly placed on parole supervision or should he have been placed on postrelease community supervision? 2. Is there sufficient evidence to support the finding that Rogers was in violation of the conditions of his parole? 3. Should Rogers’s sexual offender registration requirement be terminated and removed pursuant to Penal Code section 290, subdivision (d)? 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 Rogers on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12