Filed 10/16/20 P. v. Locke 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

BENNIE TYRONE LOCKE,

Defendant and 

Appellant.

 B305574

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA077072)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Shannon Knight, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________
2

Defendant and appellant Bennie Tyrone Locke appeals 

from a probation revocation order. We affirm the order.

In September 2019, defendant pled no contest to a 

felony charge of willfully inflicting corporal injury on his

girlfriend (victim) within seven years of a prior conviction for 

a similar offense (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(1)).

1 The trial 

court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed 

defendant on formal probation for five years, subject to 

terms and conditions, including a 10-year criminal protective 

order providing defendant not associate with, and stay 100 

yards away from, victim.

On November 13, 2019, defendant was charged in a 

new case, which initiated probation revocation proceedings.

A formal revocation hearing was held on January 31, 2020. 

Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff William Justice testified 

that victim called the police to say that she had a restraining

order against her former boyfriend and he was attempting to 

enter her residence. Deputy Justice arrived around 1:00 

a.m. on November 10, 2019, saw defendant on the sidewalk 

walking away from victim’s address, and detained him. 

Defendant spontaneously stated that he was just there 

trying to talk to his girlfriend. Deputy Justice could see 

victim in her doorway, approximately 50 yards away from 

where defendant was located when Deputy Justice first saw 

him. Deputy Justice spoke to victim and verified her 

identity against her I.D. card. The court took judicial notice 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise specified.
3

of the protective order filed in September 2019. Defendant 

submitted on the People’s evidence.

The trial court found defendant was in violation of his 

probation for violating the criminal protective order. The 

court reviewed defendant’s criminal history, which included 

multiple prior criminal convictions and probation violations. 

The court noted specifically that defendant was previously 

convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and was on

probation in that case at the time he committed the section 

273.5, subdivision (f)(1) violation at issue here. Defendant 

requested to be placed in a drug court or program as an 

alternative to incarceration. The court revoked probation 

and imposed the upper terms of five-years in state prison.

(§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1).) The court awarded 101 days of actual 

credit, plus 100 days good time/work time credit. The court 

imposed fines and fees and reaffirmed the criminal 

protective order. Defendant timely appealed.

Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in 

accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436

(Wende), raising no issues but requesting that this court

independently review the entire record to determine if there 

are any arguable issues. Defendant was advised of his right 

to file a supplemental letter brief.

On June 29, 2020, defendant filed his supplemental 

brief.

We have examined each of defendant’s contentions and 

find they without merit. We have completed our 

independent review of the record and are satisfied that 
4

defendant's appointed appellate counsel fully complied with 

his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist on appeal. 

(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Accordingly, we affirm 

the probation revocation order.

The probation revocation order is affirmed.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.