Filed 8/1/14 P. v. Thornton 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D065230
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. PLV64547)
WILLIAM THORNTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Desiree
Bruce-Lyle, Judge. Affirmed.
Beatrice C. Tillman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
As of August 29, 2013, William Thornton was on parole for second degree
robbery. Parole authorities filed a petition in the superior court to revoke parole pursuant
to Penal Code section 3000.01. The petition alleged various violations including
possession of a methamphetamine pipe and burglary tools. Thornton waived hearing on
the petition and admitted the violation. The court revoked and reinstated parole subject
to 39 days custody with credit for 39 days served. The court also imposed a requirement
that he complete an outpatient treatment program and BI program.
In October 2013, Thornton was arrested for failing to register as a sex offender,
failure to complete his programs and possession of pornographic material.
Thornton requested and received a hearing on the parole revocation petition. He
represented himself at that hearing. Thornton filed a number of motions all of which
were denied, including a motion to dismiss the petition.
Follow an evidentiary hearing the court revoked and reinstated parole on the
original terms and conditions and imposed 135 days custody with credit for 108 days.
Thornton filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied. He thereafter filed a
timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) indicating
counsel has not been able to find an arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel
requests this court to review the record for error. We offered Thornton the opportunity to
file his own brief on appeal, and he has responded. We will address the issues raised by
Thornton below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
State parole agent Mike Shanahan testified that Thornton was on parole as a
convicted sex offender. Thornton was required to wear a CPS device and to register
2
pursuant to Penal Code section 290. He was also ordered not to possess pornographic
material.
Thornton was required to update his registration by no later than October 3, 2013,
however he failed to do so. Thornton was arrested on October 17, 2013. As of that point
Thornton had failed to complete the required programs. At the time of his arrest he had
three pictures of a nude female on his cell phone.
Thornton testified he had gone to the El Cajon Police Department on October 3,
2013, but was told to come back on October 8. Thornton said that when he was arrested
he was on his way to the Sheriff's Department in order to register.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating she is unable to find any arguable issues for
reversal on appeal. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the
following possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Thornton's motion to dismiss the
petition as being untimely.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Thornton failed to register,
possessed prohibited material on his cell phone, and failed to attend required programs.
As we have noted, Thornton has filed his own brief on appeal. His brief is
somewhat rambling, but we can discern a few issues that we should identify.
First, Thornton contends the requirement that he register under Penal Code section
290 deprives him of several constitutional rights. The difficulty with this contention is
3
that it is addressed to a requirement imposed in the underlying criminal case, and it is not
an issue which can be raised in an appeal from a later parole revocation.
Next Thornton complains he was not properly identified by the parole agent in
court. He has included his own drawing of the courtroom to illustrate his point. This
issue was not raised in the trial court.
Thornton next makes a generalized complaint about access to the jail law library
and contends the court was wrong when it told him he would not get special treatment
because he represented himself. He argues that he should be held to a lower requirement
than would be the case for an attorney. Again, these are issues without any basis in the
record.
Finally, Thornton argues the petition filed by the parole agent was false and that
another agent perjured herself. These issues are not based on the record on appeal.
In sum, Thornton has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 we
have reviewed the entire record and have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Thornton has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
4
DISPOSITION
The order revoking and reinstating parole is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
McDONALD, J.
5