Full Opinion

Filed 11/4/26 P. v. Reyes CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F090389 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 24CM0846, v. 23CM1523) MARK LAWRENCE REYES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Marianne Gilbert, Judge. William I. Parks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Harrell, J. INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Mark Lawrence Reyes (defendant) pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine and was placed on probation. He repeatedly violated probation, committed a new offense, and he was again reinstated on probation. After additional probation violations, the trial court sentenced him to two years in prison. On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plea and Probation in Case No. 23CM1523 On June 5, 2023, a complaint was filed in Kings County Superior Court case No. 23CM1523, that charged defendant with committing the following offenses on or about June 2, 2023: count 1, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), felony possession of a controlled substance with a previous conviction of an enumerated offense, forcible rape in violation of Penal Code1 section 261, subdivision (a)(2) in 1993; and count 2, misdemeanor possession of a smoking device for a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)). As to count 1, it was further alleged defendant’s forcible rape conviction constituted a prior strike conviction. On September 13, 2023, defendant pleaded no contest to felony count 1, possession of methamphetamine and admitted the offense was punishable as a felony because of his prior conviction for forcible rape in violation of section 261, subdivision (a)(2) in Sacramento County Superior Court case No. 93F07223 on 1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2. December 1, 1993, which is an offense that requires mandatory registration as a sex offender. 2 The trial court dismissed count 2 and the strike allegation. The trial court placed defendant on felony probation for two years subject to certain terms and conditions, including reporting to the probation department and enrollment in and completion of a drug rehabilitation program through the Veteran’s Administration (VA). The prosecutor asked the trial court to order defendant to continue to comply with the prior mandatory sex offender registration order as a condition of probation. The court stated defendant was already required to obey all laws as a condition of probation, and that included compliance with the existing mandatory registration order. Defendant also admitted he violated probation in two unrelated cases, and the trial court ordered defendant to serve a total of 10 days in jail with credit for time served of 12 days. First Probation Violation On October 4, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on allegations defendant violated probation because he failed to report as ordered and he was found in possession of 7.2 grams of methamphetamine. The court revoked probation. On November 29, 2023, defendant admitted he violated probation because he possessed methamphetamine, failed to charge his ankle monitor, and failed to enroll in a 2 Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) states that unlawful possession of a controlled substance shall be punishable as a felony with a state prison sentence (§ 1170, subd. (h)) if the person has one or more prior convictions for either a serious or violent felony as enumerated in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv), or for an offense requiring registration pursuant to section 290, subdivision (c). As stated by the trial court and the prosecutor, and admitted by defendant, he pleaded to felony possession of methamphetamine because his prior conviction for forcible rape in violation of section 261, subdivision (a)(2) required mandatory registration as a sex offender. (§ 290, subd. (d)(3)(K).) 3. VA drug program. The trial court suspended execution of sentence and reinstated him on probation subject to the same terms and conditions. On January 26, 2024, the trial court conducted a review hearing and found defendant was enrolled in a VA housing program and a peer support/individual therapy program. Second Probation Violation and Contested Hearing On April 3, 2024, the trial court held a contested evidentiary hearing that defendant requested on new allegations that he violated probation because he did not enroll in a VA substance abuse treatment program and failed to appear at a court hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, Steven Lawler, defendant’s probation officer, testified one of defendant’s probationary terms was to enroll and complete a substance abuse drug program, particularly a VA residential treatment program. Lawler testified defendant had obtained VA housing. Lawler spoke to defendant several times and repeatedly asked for proof of his enrollment in a treatment program. Defendant told Lawler he was trying to get into the substance abuse treatment program. Defendant never said he was attending the program. Lawler testified it was very difficult to obtain information from the VA. Lawler sent multiple emails and left phone messages with three specific VA officials about defendant’s case, and they did not respond. On March 5, 2024, Lawler received an email from Amber Cardiel, a social worker with the VA. He had not contacted her, and believed she was asked to respond to his other messages. In the email, Cardiel did not clarify whether she was defendant’s social worker, but stated defendant had been in the VA housing program since December 1, 2023, and he never enrolled or attempted to enroll in a VA substance abuse treatment program. Cardiel did not state whether substance abuse services were offered to defendant. 4. Lawler testified that on March 8, 2024, defendant failed to appear in court. On March 11, 2024, defendant called Lawler and said he was going to appear for the next hearing. Defendant testified at the hearing that he was accepted into VA sober living housing in Fresno on December 1, 2023, and he passed all drug tests. He went to multiple intake and evaluation appointments for the treatment program in December 2023, and he was accepted into the program on January 16, 2024. Defendant testified he was supposed to attend a peer group session on March 1, 2024, but it was cancelled. Defendant received a letter from the VA, dated January 16, 2024, stating he was enrolled in the Harm Reduction Program. Defendant told his probation officer what was going on, and he was trying to get the paperwork to show him. The Trial Court’s Findings The trial court found defendant was in a VA mental health program and not a substance abuse program. The trial court declined to find defendant willfully violated probation because it was very difficult for the probation officer to communicate with the VA and obtain confirmation. There was no evidence Cardiel was defendant’s social worker or knew who he was, and her email did not refute defendant’s testimony that his attempt to enroll in the program was delayed because of cancelled appointments. The trial court modified the terms of defendant’s probation to order him to enter a substance abuse program “whether it is the Veteran’s Administration or not, I don’t care. He is going to be in a program. We’re coming back in 30 days. He is either in a program or he goes back into jail, it is that simple.” Defendant said he understood. The trial court advised Lawler to find an appropriate program for defendant that communicated with him, regardless of whether it was a VA program. Lawler said he would do so, but he could not get defendant into a residential treatment program. The court stated an outpatient program was okay, and defendant should remain in the existing 5. mental health program. Lawler added that defendant was being tested for drugs with the VA, but the VA was not sending the results to Lawler. The court modified the order to state defendant had to participate in any outpatient drug testing program three times a week. Probation Violation and New Charge in Case No. 24CM0846 On April 10, 2024, a complaint was filed in case No. 24CM0846, and alleged defendant possessed methamphetamine while in custody in jail on or about September 25, 2023 (§ 4573.6, subd. (a)), with his prior forcible rape offense as a strike conviction. On May 3, 2024, the trial court convened a hearing on the new charge. The court found defendant was still in VA housing and regularly attending an outpatient group. Defendant said he was waiting for his Social Security payments to start. Defendant pleaded no contest to the charge in the new case No. 24CM0846, and the trial court dismissed the prior strike allegation and placed him on probation for two years. Defendant also admitted he violated probation in case No. 23CM1523 because of his plea to the offense in case No. 24CM0846, and the trial court reinstated defendant on probation. The court set a review hearing in three months so that it would not disturb defendant’s attendance at outpatient appointments. Another Probation Violation On July 25, 2024, the trial court convened a scheduled review hearing and stated defendant was alleged to have violated probation in case Nos. 23CM1523 and 24CM0846. On August 5, 2024, the trial court issued a no-bail bench warrant for defendant because he failed to appear. On August 19, 2024, defendant was present and in custody, and the court set a contested hearing on the new probation violation. 6. Suspension of Criminal Proceedings On September 5, 2024, the trial court convened the scheduled contested hearing on defendant’s latest probation violation. After defendant made a series of bizarre statements to the court, it declared a doubt about defendant’s competency, suspended criminal proceedings in both cases, and ordered an evaluation of defendant pursuant to section 1368. On October 4, 2024, the trial court reviewed the expert’s report and found defendant was not competent to stand trial, and ordered a placement report. On December 9, 2024, the trial court committed defendant to the Department of State Hospitals for placement in a suitable locked mental health facility for treatment and restoration of competency, and authorized involuntary medication if necessary. Reinstatement of Criminal Proceedings and Probation On January 17, 2025, the trial court conducted a review hearing and report, found defendant’s competency was restored, and reinstated criminal proceedings in both cases. On the same day, defendant admitted he violated probation because he missed court dates. The trial court ordered defendant released from custody based on credit for time served, reinstated him on probation in both cases subject to the same terms and conditions, and ordered him to report to the probation department. Another Probation Violation and Contested Hearing On June 26, 2025, the trial court convened a review hearing and found defendant was again alleged to have violated probation in both cases. Defendant was in custody and denied the new allegations, and a hearing was sent. On July 8, 2025, the trial court conducted a contested evidentiary hearing about the new probation violation allegations, that defendant did not report to the probation department as ordered and he failed to update his place of residence. 7. At the hearing, Deputy Probation Officer Clemente Mata testified that Lawler had been defendant’s probation officer in January 2025, and Mata became defendant’s probation officer in May 2025. Mata never talked to Lawler about defendant’s case. Mata testified that when trial court reinstated defendant on probation on January 17, 2025, he was ordered to report to the probation department. There was no record that defendant went to the probation department or talked to another probation officer, and he was not on the sign-in sheet that was maintained at the office. Defendant had not communicated with a probation officer, and he did not provide updated information about his address or telephone number. Defendant also testified at the hearing, and said he went to the probation office the day after he was released from jail, on January 19 or 20, 2025. He spoke with Lawler, who told defendant that he was no longer on probation because the trial court found he was incompetent. Defendant told Lawler he was reinstated back on probation. Lawler again told him that he was not on probation and he could leave. A couple of days later, defendant returned to the probation office and again spoke to Lawler. Lawler told defendant that he was no longer in the system, there was no paperwork for him, and he was no longer on probation. Defendant said he gave Lawler his current telephone number. Lawler said he would be in touch but never called. Defendant testified when he went back to the probation office for a third time, Lawler was not in the office and he waited a few hours for him. When Lawler returned, he again told defendant that he was not on probation, and to stop coming to the office or he would be arrested for bothering them. Defendant testified he went to the probation office about six times in the two weeks after he was released from jail and reinstated on probation. Lawler told him that he checked the records and defendant’s probation ended on January 5, 2025. Defendant testified that when he learned about the new probation violation allegations, he turned himself into the jail. 8. The Trial Court’s Ruling The trial court held the prosecution met its burden that defendant violated the terms and conditions of probation because he failed to report to the probation office and failed to provide updated contact information. “It seems unreasonable to the [c]ourt that [defendant] went to probation three to six times and that there would be no documentation of that.” Sentencing On August 6, 2025, the trial court conducted the sentencing hearing for both cases. In case No. 23CM1523, the first case, the trial court denied defendant’s request for probation and imposed the midterm of two years for felony possession of a controlled substance after an enumerated prior conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court found that based on defendant’s custody credits, he had fully served the term and the case was over. In case No. 24CM0846, the second case, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the lower term of two years for possession of methamphetamine while in custody in jail (§ 4573.6, subd. (a)). The court found that based on his credits, defendant was “almost” timed out on the case, and that defendant would soon be released on parole. On September 3, 2025, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in both case Nos. 23CM1523 and 24CM0846. DISCUSSION As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court on June 23, 2026. Attached to the brief was appellate counsel’s declaration he advised defendant, in a letter dated June 15, 2026, that the Wende brief was being filed on his behalf and defendant had the right to submit a supplemental brief. According to the proof of service, the Wende brief was served on the trial court, the district attorney, defense counsel, and “[a] copy was also delivered to appellant, Mark L. Reyes.” 9. Also on June 23, 2026, this court sent a letter to defendant, with proof of service to Wasco State Prison, and invited him to submit a supplemental brief in this appeal. The letter was returned to this court as undeliverable and unable to forward, with the additional note that defendant had been paroled. This court obtained three different addresses from the trial court and defense counsel. After sending additional letters to these addresses, the letters were again returned as undeliverable. After independent review of the record, we find that no other reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 10.