Filed 6/14/21 P. v. Presswood 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

DARRELL PRESSWOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

B309018

(Los Angeles County Super. 

Ct. No. 0PR03579)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Kevin S. Rosenberg, Judge. Dismissed.

Ricard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________
2

In 2017, defendant Darrell Presswood pled guilty to 

possession for sale of phencyclidine (PCP) (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11378.5) and was sentenced to three years in prison. Defendant

was released on post-release community supervision in February 

2019. On June 9, 2020, a family member informed the police that 

defendant had threatened her. Defendant was taken into 

custody, and was charged with making a terrorist threat (Pen. 

Code, § 422, subd. (a)). 

Defendant’s probation officer filed a revocation petition. 

Defendant waived his right to a hearing and other constitutional 

rights and admitted violating the conditions of his release. The 

trial court revoked and reinstated post-release community 

supervision with modified conditions, and ordered defendant to 

serve 180 days in the county jail. At the time, he had credit for 

170 days in custody. Defendant timely appealed. 

After examining the record, appointed counsel filed an 

opening brief under People v. Wende (197) 25 Cal.3d 436 raising 

no issues. On February 17, 2021, we advised defendant he had 

30 days to personally submit any contentions he wished us to 

consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

Recent cases have held that Wende review is required only 

from a defendant’s first appeal from a criminal conviction. (See 

People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1028, review granted 

October 14, 2020, S264278 (Cole) [Wende does not apply to 

appeals from the denial of postconviction relief]; People v. 

Figueroa (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108, 111 (Figueroa), review 

granted May 12, 2021, S267870 [following Cole].) In People v. 

Freeman (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 126, the court applied this 

reasoning to an appeal from an order revoking and reinstating 

post-release community supervision because the order was “not a 
3

direct appeal from a judgment of conviction.” (Id. at p. 133.) The 

Freeman court also held, “When an appellant files a pro se 

supplemental brief in a Wende case, the appellate court must 

address the specific issues raised and, if they lack merit, explain 

why they fail.”1 (Id. at p. 134.) 

We agree with these cases. Because Wende review does not 

apply to an appeal from an order revoking post-release 

community supervision and defendant has not personally filed a 

supplemental brief, we dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BAKER, J.

KIM, J.

1 In Freeman, the appellant had filed a supplemental brief,

and in the unpublished portion of the opinion, the court 

addressed the issues that appellant himself had raised. Here, 

defendant submitted no supplemental brief.