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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

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 ye ars in state prison. Carter was released on post

- release community supervision (PRCS) on July 9, 2013. His supervision was to expi re 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 f or 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 r equest.

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 w ith 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 the n 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 matte r. Carter accepted. The trial court accepted Carter’s no contest plea, revoked and reinstated his PRCS, sentenced hi m 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 Certifica te 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

appo inted 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 o rder 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 Pe nal 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.