Filed 7/16/15 P. v. Riley CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY BRANDON RILEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B260405

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA061438)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Norm 

Shapiro, Judge. Affirmed.

Doreen B. Boxer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *
2

Timothy Brandon Riley appeals from the judgment following his contested 

probation violation hearing. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), 

appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court review the record and 

determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we provide a brief 

description of the facts and procedural history of the case.

In February 2014, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of assault with a 

deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The court sentenced him to four years 

in state prison but suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on formal 

probation for three years under various terms and conditions, including that he obey all 

laws.

On April 1, 2014, Los Angeles Police Department officers conducted a controlled 

buy operation at 3417 Fourth Avenue in Los Angeles. The city attorney had filed a civil 

suit in 2007 against the owners of that property, which resulted in an abatement order 

against narcotics sales at the location. The abatement order named appellant among the 

individuals who should stay away from the property. The officers sent nonconfidential 

informant Arthur J. to the location on April 1. Officer Brent Olsen gave Arthur J. $40 in 

buy money, patted him down, and took him to the drop location. The officer did not find 

any narcotics on Arthur J. when he patted him down. Arthur J. was equipped with a oneway body wire to transmit audio and a video and audio recording device. Arthur J. 

walked a block or two to 3417 Fourth Avenue. He asked two individuals who were 

standing on the porch if anyone was selling marijuana. One of them responded that they 

did not have any for sale. As Arthur J. was walking away down the street, appellant 

came out of the house and called him back. Appellant instructed Arthur J. to follow him 

back to the house. Arthur J. did so and purchased $10 worth of marijuana from appellant. 

The substance Arthur J. received from appellant was tested and confirmed to be 

marijuana.
3

On April 9, 2014, the court revoked appellant’s probation. In October 2014, the 

court held a probation violation hearing based on the events of April 1, 2014. The court 

found appellant in violation of probation, terminated it, and executed the previously 

imposed sentence of four years.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After review of the 

record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to 

review the record independently pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. On 

April 14, 2015, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit any 

contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Appellant did not file a supplement 

brief.

We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that no arguable issues exist 

and that appellant’s counsel has fully satisfied her responsibilities under Wende. (Smith 

v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279-284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see People 

v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 123-124.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

FLIER, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. OHTA, J.*

*

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.