Filed 7/19/22 P. v. Glee CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E078358
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB21000298)
CLEOPHUS GLEE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. Affirmed.
Dawn S. Mortazavi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Cleophus Glee appeals the order of the San Bernardino
Superior Court putting into effect a three-year suspended prison sentence after finding he
violated his probation. We affirm.
1
BACKGROUND
In April 2021, defendant pled no contest to injuring a cohabitant in violation of
Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a). He was given a suspended mid-term sentence
of three years in state prison and placed on felony probation for 24 months with a
requirement he participate in a 52-week domestic violence program. One condition of his
probation was that he not violate any law.
Two months later, defendant was taken into custody after another domestic
violence incident involving the same cohabitant and again charged with a violation of
Penal Code section 273.5. The People petitioned for revocation of probation and remand
of defendant. Following a hearing on the petition held pursuant to People v. Vickers
(1972) 8 Cal.3rd 451, the court found defendant violated his probation and that he was
not amenable to continued probation supervision. It imposed the previously suspended
three-year sentence and found defendant entitled to total credits of 598 days consisting of
299 custody and 299 conduct credits. Defendant appealed and we appointed counsel to
represent him.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s 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, which sets forth
statements of the case and facts, and requests this court to independently review the entire
record on appeal.
2
Counsel also suggests five potentially arguable issues: (i) whether the trial court
improperly allowed hearsay evidence when it permitted a 911 tape to be played and
admitted a text message sent by the victim; (ii) whether the evidence was sufficient to
support revocation of defendant’s probation; (iii) whether the court erred when it denied
reinstatement of defendant’s probation; (iv) whether defendant was sentenced under the
appropriate statute; and, (v) whether defendant was awarded the appropriate number of
presentence custody credits.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
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 arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
3