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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DA RRELL PRES SWOOD

,

Defendant and Appellant. B30 9018

(Los Angeles County Super.

Ct. No. 0PR 03579 )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kevin S. Rosenberg , Judge. Dismis sed

.

Ricard B. Lennon , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________2 In 2017, de fendant Darrell Presswood pled guilty to
possession for sale of phencyclidine (PCP) (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11378.5) and was sentenced to thre e 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. Defend ant 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

se rve 180 days in the county jail

. At the time, he had credit for
170 days in custody. D efendant timely appealed.

After e xamining the record, appointed counsel filed a n 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 perso nally 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 ord er revoking and reinstating

post

- release community supervision because the order was “ not a3

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.