Filed 12/12/22 P. v. Timmons CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinio n has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KENNETH TI MMONS,

Defen dant and Appellant. B318641

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA09227 9 )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County , Hilleri G. Merritt, Judge. Dismissed

. Ryan Patrick King, under appointment by the C ourt o f
A ppeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 On March 26, 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement,
defendant Kenneth Timmons pleaded no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Cod e, § 2 73.5 , subd. (a)) 1

and admitted he personally i nflict ed great bodily injury on his
victim (§ 12022.7, subd. ( a )). T he trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison . The court suspended execution of
that sentence a nd placed defendant on felony probation for five

years under various terms and conditions, including the condition he complete a 52

- week domestic violence course. At a probation violation hea ring o n November 18, 2020,
defendant a dmitted he violated probation by failing to participate
in domestic v iolence counseling . The trial court reinstated probation under various terms and conditions

, advis ing defendant he would be going to prison for seve n years pursuant

to his plea agreement if he did not “get back on track” with
domestic violen ce counseling

. At a probation violation hearing on February 10, 2022, a probation officer testified that defendant viola ted probation by
h is arrest for petty theft ; faili ng to report to the p robation department consistently

, or at all after June 2, 2021 ; failing to

pay his “financial obligation” ; and not complet ing domestic violence counseling

. Further , defendant admitt ed using illegal
narcotics , spec ifically, MDMA, cocaine, and marijuana. At the continued probation violation hearing on February 24, 2022

, an organized retail crime investigator for
Marshall’s and other stores in Los Angeles County testified that
defendant stole merchandis e from Marshall’s stores on multiple
occasions in 2021. Defendant was arrested on May 20, 2021

, following one of the t h efts

.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 Focusi ng on defendant’s retail thef t, t he trial court found
defendant violated probat ion and ordered execution of
defendant’s seven

- year sentence. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.
On July 28, 2022, counsel filed an ope ning b r ief in which he did not identify any arguab le issues and requested that we follow the procedure set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 ( Wende )

. On July 29, 2022 , we notified defendant that appointed
counsel had fa iled to find any arguable issues and he had 30 day s within which to brief inde pendently any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished us to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
Wende “r eview was established to protect the federal

const itutional ri g ht to the eff ec tive assistance of counsel in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction.” ( People v. Freeman (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 126, 134.) This is not a direct appeal from
defendant’s crim inal conviction. Because appointed counsel filed

a Wende brie f that identif ies no issue s and defendant has not
filed a supplemental brief, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned. ( People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278 ; see People v. Freeman, supra

, 61 Cal.App .5th at p. 1 3 4 .) In any e vent, we have reviewed the
record and are satisfied that defendant ’ s appointed counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities in the instant appeal and no arguable issues exi st. ( Wende, supra

, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)4 DISPOS ITION

The a p p eal is dismi ssed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.