Court Opinion

ID: 9942340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 21:02:47.502875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:58.969530
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/20/24 P. v. Underwood CA2/4
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,                                                    B327972

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. LA096488-01)
         v.

JASON UNDERWOOD,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Affirmed.
     A. William Bartz, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                 ____________________________
       Appellant Jason Underwood pleaded no contest to one
count of vandalism (Pen.1 Code § 594, subdivision (a)) and was
granted probation, subject to various conditions. Appellant
timely appealed the trial court’s order, and appellate counsel filed
a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)
indicating he has not identified any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record as
mandated by Wende. Appellant filed a supplemental brief raising
various challenges to the trial court’s order. We discuss the
supplemental brief in the discussion section below and affirm the
trial court’s order.

                         BACKGROUND
      On September 16, 2022, an information was filed charging
appellant with one count of vandalism involving $400.00 or more
in damage or destruction of property (§ 594, subdivision (a)). On
November 30, 2022, appellant pled no contest to the charge and
was placed on formal probation with various conditions. The
transcript of the no contest plea reflects that probation was
terminated in two other pending cases as part of his plea
agreement. The court imposed an upper term sentence of three
years with execution of sentence suspended pending successful
completion of probation.
      On January 4, 2023, appellant timely appealed the trial
court’s order.2

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
otherwise specified.

2     An order granting probation and suspending imposition of
sentence is an appealable order. (§ 1237, subd. (a) [deeming an order
granting probation as a “final judgment” for purposes of taking an

                                   2
                             DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal.
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and
procedural history of the case and requests this court review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant was advised by
this court of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days
from issuance of the notice. Appellant filed a supplemental brief
challenging the trial court’s November 30, 2022, order granting
probation, and raising issues directed at the trial court’s
subsequent March 22, 2023, order revoking his probation and
imposing sentence.3 The revocation order is the subject of a
separate appeal before this court.
       Under Wende, when appellate counsel identifies no
arguable issues on appeal, an appellate court independently
reviews the record for arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
at pp. 441–442.) In addition, the defendant has the right to file a
supplemental brief. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 440.) If a
defendant files a supplemental brief, the “opinion must reflect the
contentions and the reasons that they fail.” (People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120.) However, a “decision does not
require an extended discussion of legal principles. [Citations.]
Moreover, a recitation of each of the defendant’s assertions will

appeal]; People v. Amons (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 855, 869, fn. 8
[explaining that if probation is granted and imposition of sentence is
suspended, decision “is final for the limited purpose of taking an
appeal therefrom”].)
3     On March 22, 2023, following a probation hearing, appellant’s
probation was revoked and the trial court ordered him to serve the
previously imposed (but suspended), three-year term in local custody.
This revocation order is the subject of Appeal No. B330049.

                                   3
not be necessary in all cases; the purposes of the constitutional
requirement [for a written decision] may in some circumstances
be satisfied by a summary description of the contentions made
and the reasons they fail.” (Id. at p. 121.)
       In this case, the majority of appellant’s challenges are
directed to the trial court’s March 22, 2023, order revoking
probation, which is beyond the scope of this appeal. The instant
notice of appeal filed by appellant is limited to the November 30,
2022, order granting probation. (Cf. People v. Amons, supra, 125
Cal.App.4th 855, 869, fn. 8.)
       Further, appellant’s arguments directed at the three-year
term imposed and suspended on November 30, 2022, lack merit.
Appellant expressly admitted as an aggravating factor, under
California Rules of Court, rule 4.421 (b)(3), that he had served a
prior prison or jail term, which justified the trial court’s
imposition of the upper three-year term. The probation report
filed in this case also reflects appellant has a lengthy criminal
history and lists no mitigating factors. Appellant has failed to
point to any evidence in the record indicating otherwise.
       Appellant’s additional contention that he had “20 months
credit” at the time of his conviction and and as such should have
been given credit for “time served” is contradicted by the
transcript of his no contest plea. Appellant expressly waived
“back credit for all the time [he] served in custody on this case”

                                 4
and was therefore entitled to “0” custody credits.4 Appellant has
not shown otherwise.5
      Having also undertaken an examination of the entire
record, we find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to appellant. Accordingly, we affirm
the order on appeal.

                       DISPOSITION
      The November 30, 2022, order granting probation is
affirmed.

                                             MORI, J.

      We concur:

             COLLINS, Acting P.J.

             ZUKIN, J.

4      In his supplemental brief, appellant also disputes the accuracy
of credits granted at the March 22, 2023, hearing revoking probation.
However, as previously noted, that hearing, and the trial court’s
ensuing order, are beyond the scope of the instant appeal.

5      Appellant’s November 27, 2023, request “to expedite appeal and
substitute in as counsel” is denied.

                                   5