Filed 4/21/15 P. v. Lefler CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CODY LEFFLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B258903

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. VA134755)

THE COURT:*

On September 5, 2014, Cody Leffler (Leffler) appealed from the judgment entered 

after he was acquitted on the offenses charged in the information but convicted of a lesser 

included offense, possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377). 

He was sentenced to the low term of 16 months. Subsequently, the trial court granted 

Leffler’s Proposition 47 petition and ordered his conviction to be reduced from a felony 

to a misdemeanor. He was resentenced to time served. Several months later, Leffler’s 

appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436, 441 (Wende) in which he indicated that there are no arguable issues that can be 

raised. On February 9, 2015, we notified Leffler of his counsel’s brief and gave him 

 

* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
2

leave to file, within 30 days, a brief or letter setting forth any arguments supporting his 

appeal. That time expired, and Leffler opted not to file a brief or letter.

The record indicates the following:

An information was filed on June 17, 2014, in the Los Angeles Superior Court, 

charging Leffler with possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11378; count 1) and possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count 4). The information further alleged that Leffler was 

armed with a firearm in the commission of count 1 (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)). 

Leffler made a motion and requested either that the trial court appoint a new attorney 

pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) or allow Leffler to 

represent himself. The trial court denied the Marsden motion. Leffler withdrew his 

request to represent himself. 

The case proceeded to trial. 

The evidence established that on November 20, 2013, police officers executed a 

search warrant at a house in Norwalk. Department of Motor Vehicle records indicated 

that the house was Leffler’s legal place of residence. The house belonged to the mother 

of Mikelene Dennis (Dennis). Leffler had lived there since July 2012. After entering the 

house, the police detained Heather Dee and took her outside. In the first of four 

bedrooms, which contained men’s toiletry items as well as various items labeled with 

Leffler’s name, the police found a desk with a magnetic tin attached to the underside. At 

trial, an expert established that the magnetic tin recovered from the house contained 

4.8 grams of methamphetamine. The second bedroom contained women’s clothing and 

cosmetics. The remaining bedrooms contained nothing but storage boxes and 

miscellaneous items. Leffler’s truck was parked in the backyard. Dennis testified that 

Leffler sent her a text message saying that police had come to the house, he was in the 

garage and ran away when they arrived, and he had a small amount of methamphetamine 

in the house. 

At the close of evidence, Leffler moved to dismiss. (Pen. Code, § 1118.1.) The 

trial court denied his motion. 
3

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Leffler’s attorney has 

fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude 

that Leffler has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our 

review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment 

entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. 

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.