Court Opinion

ID: 9409572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 18:05:12.822915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:51.458042
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/18/23 P. v. Lloyd CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     A166030
 v.
 LEODIS JAMES LLOYD,                                                     (Marin County
           Defendant and Appellant.                                      Super. Ct. No. SC197289A)

         Defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence revoking mandatory
supervision based on probation violations. Defendant’s appellate counsel
filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)
requesting that this court independently review the record on appeal to
determine whether it contains any arguable issues. This appeal is not
subject to Wende review because it is not a direct appeal from a criminal
conviction. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226–228 (Delgadillo);
People v. Freeman (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 126, 134 (Freeman).) Therefore, we
dismiss the appeal.
                                                  BACKGROUND
         In September 2017, while in prison custody in Marin County for a prior
offense, defendant was charged with possession of controlled substances in

                                                               1
prison on or about March 21, 2016 (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a); count 1);1
sale of a controlled substance on or about March 21, 2016 (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 2); and possession of controlled substances in
prison on or about March 27, 2016 (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a); count 3).
The information also alleged that defendant served two prior prison terms.2
      On March 13, 2018, defendant pleaded guilty to count 1 on the
condition that the remaining counts be dismissed at sentencing and with the
understanding that he faced a maximum penalty of six years, comprised of
the upper term of four years, enhanced by two consecutive one-year prior
prison term enhancements. On July 9, 2018, the court found defendant
eligible for a split sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), with a
portion of his sentence to be a period of mandatory supervision. Defendant
was ordered to appear for sentencing at a subsequent hearing, which was
continued to December 2018.
      In December 2018, defendant’s counsel requested that the court
sentence defendant to three years of mandatory supervision and no jail time.
The trial court denied defendant’s request. The court sentenced defendant to
the low term of two years for violation of section 4573.6, subdivision (a), and
one year for his prior prison enhancement. Pursuant to section 1170,
subdivision (h)(5)(B), the trial court ordered defendant to serve one year in
custody, consecutive to any other sentence, and two years on mandatory
supervision.

      1   All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
stated.
      2The original information additionally alleged that defendant had prior
serious felony convictions for robbery in 2010. Defendant was born in 1993
and was a juvenile at the time of the robbery convictions. The trial court
granted the prosecution’s motion to strike the prior serious felony allegations.

                                        2
      On August 13, 2019, the trial court granted defendant’s unopposed
motion for early release from custody. Defendant’s two-year mandatory
supervision began on August 16, 2019.
      On November 21, 2019, the probation department filed a petition for
revocation of mandatory supervision alleging that defendant tested positive
for drugs and alcohol on multiple dates in October and November 2019, that
he failed to appear for office visits, and that he removed his global positioning
system monitoring device. Defendant did not appear at the December 10,
2019 hearing on the petition, and the trial court revoked mandatory
supervision and issued a bench warrant. Defendant next appeared in court
on February 2, 2021, and denied the allegations of the petition to revoke
mandatory supervision. However, on February 23, 2021, defendant admitted
the allegations. The trial court ordered defendant to serve 60 days’
additional jail time as a sanction for the violations and released him from
custody for time served. The court reinstated mandatory supervision. The
probation department calculated defendant’s new mandatory supervision
termination date to be August 31, 2022.
      On May 3, 2021, the probation department filed another petition to
revoke mandatory supervision, alleging that defendant failed to appear for
scheduled office visits in April 2021. On May 18, 2021, the trial court issued
another bench warrant and again revoked mandatory supervision.
      On December 21, 2021, the probation department reported that the
defendant had filed a Penal Code section 13813 demand and had informed the

      3 Section 1381 provides that when a defendant has been sentenced to
prison and has a pending “indictment, information, complaint, or any
criminal proceeding wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced, the
district attorney of the county in which the matters are pending shall bring

                                       3
department that on October 21, 2021, he was sentenced by the Stanislaus
County Superior Court to state prison for one year four months for violation
of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a). The probation department
reported that defendant had 470 days remaining to be served on mandatory
supervision in the Marin County case.
      On January 11, 2022, the trial court modified defendant’s sentence by
striking the one-year prior prison term enhancement and agreeing to the
district attorney’s request to terminate mandatory supervision and deem
defendant’s Marin County sentence time served. Defendant’s counsel stated
that defendant’s release date on the new Stanislaus County prison term was
February 28, 2022. She argued that defendant’s Marin County sentence
should be merged with the Stanislaus County sentence, which she calculated
would result in defendant being released immediately because he had excess
credits.4 The trial court rejected defendant’s argument that his credits in the
Marin County case should apply to allow him early release on his sentence in
the Stanislaus County court. As the court explained, defendant’s argument
would allow defendant to benefit from committing a new crime while on
mandatory supervision by allowing early release dates in both cases.
                                DISCUSSION
      Defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief under Wende raising no
issues. Counsel states in a declaration that he advised defendant of the
nature of his brief and that defendant had the option to file a supplemental
brief within 30 days. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

the defendant to trial or for sentencing within 90 days after” the defendant
provides written notice of his imprisonment.
      4 Defense counsel’s argument appears to be based on an incorrect
assumption that defendant served 470 days of mandatory supervision. In
fact, the probation department reported that he had 470 days remaining.

                                        4
      Wende holds that on appeal from a criminal conviction, the
Constitution requires a Court of Appeal “to conduct a review of the entire
record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific
issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p.
441.) However, there is no right to independent review in an appeal from a
postconviction order in a criminal proceeding. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at pp. 226–228; People v. Freeman, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 134 [no right
to Wende review of order finding violation of a condition of appellant’s
postrelease community supervision commitment, as Wende review “was
established to protect the federal constitutional right to the effective
assistance of counsel in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction” (italics
added)].) Here, defense counsel raised no challenge to the trial court’s order
striking the one-year prior prison term enhancement and terminating
defendant’s mandatory supervision based on time served. Nor did defendant
file a supplemental brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
      Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are
satisfied that no arguable issues exist.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                        5
                                           _________________________
                                           Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Simons, J.

_________________________
Chou, J.

A166030/People v. Leodis James Lloyd

                                       6