Filed 2/20/24 P. v. Underwood CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JASON UNDERWOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B327972

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. LA096488-01)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Affirmed.

A. William Bartz, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

____________________________
2

Appellant Jason Underwood pleaded no contest to one 

count of vandalism (Pen.1 Code § 594, subdivision (a)) and was 

granted probation, subject to various conditions. Appellant 

timely appealed the trial court’s order, and appellate counsel filed 

a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) 

indicating he has not identified any arguable issues for reversal 

on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record as 

mandated by Wende. Appellant filed a supplemental brief raising 

various challenges to the trial court’s order. We discuss the 

supplemental brief in the discussion section below and affirm the 

trial court’s order. 

BACKGROUND

On September 16, 2022, an information was filed charging 

appellant with one count of vandalism involving $400.00 or more 

in damage or destruction of property (§ 594, subdivision (a)). On 

November 30, 2022, appellant pled no contest to the charge and 

was placed on formal probation with various conditions. The 

transcript of the no contest plea reflects that probation was 

terminated in two other pending cases as part of his plea 

agreement. The court imposed an upper term sentence of three 

years with execution of sentence suspended pending successful 

completion of probation. 

On January 4, 2023, appellant timely appealed the trial 

court’s order.

2

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 

otherwise specified. 

2 An order granting probation and suspending imposition of 

sentence is an appealable order. (§ 1237, subd. (a) [deeming an order 

granting probation as a “final judgment” for purposes of taking an 
3

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. 

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and 

procedural history of the case and requests this court review the 

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on 

appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant was advised by 

this court of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days 

from issuance of the notice. Appellant filed a supplemental brief 

challenging the trial court’s November 30, 2022, order granting 

probation, and raising issues directed at the trial court’s 

subsequent March 22, 2023, order revoking his probation and 

imposing sentence.3 The revocation order is the subject of a 

separate appeal before this court.

Under Wende, when appellate counsel identifies no 

arguable issues on appeal, an appellate court independently 

reviews the record for arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

at pp. 441–442.) In addition, the defendant has the right to file a 

supplemental brief. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 440.) If a 

defendant files a supplemental brief, the “opinion must reflect the 

contentions and the reasons that they fail.” (People v. Kelly 

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120.) However, a “decision does not 

require an extended discussion of legal principles. [Citations.] 

Moreover, a recitation of each of the defendant’s assertions will 

appeal]; People v. Amons (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 855, 869, fn. 8

[explaining that if probation is granted and imposition of sentence is 

suspended, decision “is final for the limited purpose of taking an 

appeal therefrom”].) 

3 On March 22, 2023, following a probation hearing, appellant’s 

probation was revoked and the trial court ordered him to serve the 

previously imposed (but suspended), three-year term in local custody. 

This revocation order is the subject of Appeal No. B330049. 
4

not be necessary in all cases; the purposes of the constitutional 

requirement [for a written decision] may in some circumstances 

be satisfied by a summary description of the contentions made 

and the reasons they fail.” (Id. at p. 121.)

In this case, the majority of appellant’s challenges are 

directed to the trial court’s March 22, 2023, order revoking 

probation, which is beyond the scope of this appeal. The instant 

notice of appeal filed by appellant is limited to the November 30, 

2022, order granting probation. (Cf. People v. Amons, supra, 125 

Cal.App.4th 855, 869, fn. 8.) 

Further, appellant’s arguments directed at the three-year

term imposed and suspended on November 30, 2022, lack merit. 

Appellant expressly admitted as an aggravating factor, under 

California Rules of Court, rule 4.421 (b)(3), that he had served a 

prior prison or jail term, which justified the trial court’s 

imposition of the upper three-year term. The probation report

filed in this case also reflects appellant has a lengthy criminal 

history and lists no mitigating factors. Appellant has failed to 

point to any evidence in the record indicating otherwise. 

Appellant’s additional contention that he had “20 months 

credit” at the time of his conviction and and as such should have 

been given credit for “time served” is contradicted by the 

transcript of his no contest plea. Appellant expressly waived 

“back credit for all the time [he] served in custody on this case” 
5

and was therefore entitled to “0” custody credits.

4 Appellant has 

not shown otherwise.5

Having also undertaken an examination of the entire 

record, we find no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to appellant. Accordingly, we affirm 

the order on appeal. 

DISPOSITION

The November 30, 2022, order granting probation is 

affirmed. 

MORI, J.

We concur:

COLLINS, Acting P.J.

ZUKIN, J.

4 In his supplemental brief, appellant also disputes the accuracy 

of credits granted at the March 22, 2023, hearing revoking probation. 

However, as previously noted, that hearing, and the trial court’s 

ensuing order, are beyond the scope of the instant appeal. 

5 Appellant’s November 27, 2023, request “to expedite appeal and 

substitute in as counsel” is denied.