Court Opinion

ID: 9890689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 23:03:12.583474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:34.866161
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/13/23 P. v. Ivans 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                   B326727

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. MA079121
           v.

 TYLER IVANS,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed.
      Richard Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                      ____________________
      After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm. Statutory citations are
to the Penal Code.
      A felony complaint charged Tyler Ivans with carrying a
loaded handgun not registered to him in his vehicle in violation of
section 25850, subdivisions (a) and (c)(6). Represented by
counsel, Ivans waived his rights and entered a plea of no contest.
The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Ivans on
felony probation for three years, assessing various fees and
imposing conditions.
       About a year and a half later, Ivans admitted to violating
his probation. The court, on stipulation of the parties,
terminated probation and imposed a new two-year term of
probation. The court re-imposed the previous conditions of
probation and added a few more.
       Five months later, the court revoked Ivans’s probation
based on a probation report detailing that Ivans had failed to
meet many of the conditions of his probation. The court
remanded Ivans to custody and set a hearing on the probation
violation.
       Defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss Ivans’s conviction
as unconstitutional under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v.
Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. —, 142 S.Ct. 2111. Counsel argued
because California’s firearm licensing statute contained good
moral character and good cause requirements it was
unconstitutional and constituted an unlawful prior restraint on
Ivans’s Second Amendment rights. The prosecutor opposed the
motion, arguing the good cause requirement was severable and
Bruen had not invalidated other public carry licensing
requirements, including good moral character ones.
       At the hearing on the probation violation, the trial court
heard and denied the motion to dismiss. Ivans waived his rights
and admitted violating probation. Defense counsel argued
Ivans’s no contest plea had only applied to a violation of
subdivision (a) of section 25850, not subdivision (c)(6), and he

                                 2
should therefore be sentenced based on a misdemeanor
conviction. The trial court rejected this argument, finding the
violations of subdivisions (a) and (c)(6) were both included in
Count 1, to which Ivans had pleaded no contest. The trial court
taking the plea had confirmed Ivans intended to plead no contest
to Count 1 and had reiterated it would be a felony. The trial
court then sentenced Ivans to the low term of 16 months (see
§§ 25850, subd. (c)(6) & 1170, subd. (h)(1)) and awarded him a
presentence credit of 141 days.
       Ivans appealed from matters arising after the plea, and we
appointed counsel to represent him. Appointed counsel examined
the record and filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking
this court to review the record independently under Wende.
Counsel also advised Ivans of his right to file a supplemental
brief for us to consider. Ivans did not file a response.
       We have examined the entire appellate record. We are
satisfied Ivans’s counsel fully complied with counsel’s
responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (See Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)

                         DISPOSITION
      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                          WILEY, J.

We concur:

             STRATTON, P. J.              VIRAMONTES, J.

                                3