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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KENNETH TIMMONS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B318641

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. PA092279)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Hilleri G. Merritt, Judge. Dismissed.

Ryan Patrick King, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, 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. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1

and admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury on his 

victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant 

to seven years in state prison. The court suspended execution of 

that sentence and 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 hearing on November 18, 2020, 

defendant admitted he violated probation by failing to participate

in domestic violence counseling. The trial court reinstated 

probation under various terms and conditions, advising 

defendant he would be going to prison for seven years pursuant 

to his plea agreement if he did not “get back on track” with 

domestic violence counseling.

At a probation violation hearing on February 10, 2022, a 

probation officer testified that defendant violated probation by 

his arrest for petty theft; failing to report to the probation 

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

pay his “financial obligation”; and not completing domestic 

violence counseling. Further, defendant admitted using illegal 

narcotics, specifically, 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 merchandise from Marshall’s stores on multiple 

occasions in 2021. Defendant was arrested on May 20, 2021, 

following one of the thefts.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

Focusing on defendant’s retail theft, the trial court found 

defendant violated probation and ordered execution of

defendant’s seven-year sentence.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. 

On July 28, 2022, counsel filed an opening brief in which he did 

not identify any arguable 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 failed to find any arguable issues and he had 30 days 

within which to brief independently any grounds for appeal, 

contentions, or arguments he wished us to consider. Defendant 

did not file a supplemental brief.

Wende “review was established to protect the federal 

constitutional right to the effective 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 criminal conviction. Because appointed counsel filed 

a Wende brief that identifies no issues 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. 134.) In any event, 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 exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
4

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.