Court Opinion

ID: 9926441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 19:02:09.042884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:23.357671
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/24/24 P. v. Dennis CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,                                                          D082171

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD296661)

GREGORY D. DENNIS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.
         Stephanie A. Lickel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
         Gregory D. Dennis appeals from a judgment following his entry of a
guilty plea. His appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent
review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We
mailed Dennis notice of his right to personally file a brief, but the mailing
was returned unopened with a USPS stamp stating, “Return to
Sender/Refused/Unable to Forward.” Dennis did not personally file a brief.
      Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably
arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      On March 1, 2023, Dennis, proceeding in pro per, pled guilty to one

count of vandalism (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). At the plea hearing,
the trial court admonished him of the constitutional rights he was waiving in
pleading guilty, and he submitted a guilty plea form indicating his
understanding of the consequences of his plea. He also admitted to the
factual basis underlying the vandalism charge.
      At the sentencing hearing on March 29, 2023, Dennis received a copy
of the probation report. Despite not receiving the probation report in advance
of the hearing, he indicated his desire to go forward with sentencing. He then
objected to any condition of probation that required he take psychiatric
medications or talk to a psychiatric doctor. However, after the trial court
indicated that probation would not be granted if he was not willing to follow
the probation terms that were ordered, he withdrew any objections. The trial
court suspended imposition of sentence with credit for time served and
ordered Dennis to two years of formal probation. The trial court also imposed
a victim restitution fine in the amount of $839.88, to which Dennis
stipulated.
      On May 8, 2023, Dennis filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and
a request for a certificate of probable cause. On May 19, 2023, the trial court
issued a certificate of probable cause.
                                 DISCUSSION
      Dennis’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
                                          2
the case and statement of facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the
judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for error.
      Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the
court in its search of the record for error:
      (1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not conducting a hearing
regarding Dennis’s mental competence?
      (2) Did the trial court properly advise Dennis of his constitutional
rights in pleading guilty?
      (3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to hold a
restitution hearing?
      (4) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing Dennis at the
sentencing hearing even though he had not received an advance copy of the
probation report?
      (5) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not considering whether
Dennis was eligible for pretrial mental health diversion?
      (6) Did the trial court err in failing to consider Dennis’s ability to the
ordered fines and fees? and
      (7) Were the conditions of probation unconstitutionally vague and
overbroad?
      We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and
Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Dennis on this appeal.

                                         3
                             DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed.

                                           BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P. J.

DATO, J.

                                  4