Filed 5/25/21 P. v. Carter CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and 

 Respondent,

v.

JEROME MAJOR CARTER,

Defendant and 

 Appellant.

 B308323

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 9PR07086)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Kevin S. Rosenberg, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Greg Wolff, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

In 2012, Jerome Carter pleaded no contest to one count of 

possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. 

(a)(1).)1 The trial court sentenced Carter to two years in state 

prison. 

Carter was released on post-release community supervision 

(PRCS) on July 9, 2013. His supervision was to expire on 

February 2, 2020. 

As part of his PRCS, Carter was participating in a 

residential mental health treatment plan. On September 25, 

2019, Carter discharged himself from the residential treatment 

plan against the medical advice of his treatment team. He 

provided no information about an address where he would be 

located. Afterward, Carter failed to report to the designated 

office of the Los Angeles County Probation Department for 

supervision. 

The probation department filed a petition to revoke 

Carter’s PRCS, citing failure to cooperate in a mental health 

plan, failure to inform the probation department of his residence 

address, and failure to obey all laws. At a hearing on September 

1, 2020, the trial court heard Carter’s request to represent 

himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806. 

The trial court granted Carter’s Faretta request. 

At a hearing on September 11, 2020, Carter, representing 

himself, attempted to file a demurrer to the PRCS revocation 

petition. The trial court declined to accept the document for 

filing in the courtroom, but advised Carter that the document 

could be filed with the clerk and needed to be served on the 

People. 

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

After the trial court advised Carter that the demurrer 

would need to be set for hearing, the defendant asked the trial 

court whether he could “plead ‘no contest’ at this time and take 

my time? And then I will finish this on appeal in the streets.” In 

response, the People offered Carter a sentence of 170 days in jail 

to settle the matter. Carter accepted.

The trial court accepted Carter’s no contest plea, revoked 

and reinstated his PRCS, sentenced him to 170 days in jail, and 

awarded him 62 days of custody credit. 

Carter filed a timely notice of appeal. This court entered 

orders appointing counsel for Carter and limiting his appeal to 

“issues that do not require a Certificate of Probable Cause.” 

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening 

brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record 

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

(Wende). On March 11, 2021, we sent a letter to Carter and his 

appointed counsel advising Carter that within 30 days he could 

personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted us to 

consider, and directing counsel to send the record and opening 

brief to Carter immediately. Carter did not file a supplemental 

brief.

“California courts have declined to require Wende review in 

any appeal other than a first appeal of right from a judgment of 

criminal conviction.” (People v. Freeman (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 

126, 132.) In Freeman, the court concluded that an appeal from 

an order revoking and reinstating PRCS was “not subject to 

Wende review . . . because it is not a direct appeal from a 

judgment of conviction.” (Id. at p. 133.) On that basis we will 

dismiss the appeal.
4

Regardless of whether the appeal was entitled to Wende 

review, we have examined the entire record and are satisfied that 

Carter’s counsel complied with the responsibilities Wende 

imposes. No arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 

Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) 

Carter’s no contest plea and failure to obtain a certificate of 

probable cause limit the potential scope of his appeal to 

“[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the 

plea’s validity” or “[t]he denial of a motion to suppress evidence 

under Penal Code section 1538.5.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.304(b); see § 1237.5.) The record does not demonstrate the 

existence of any such issue.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.