People v. Bennett CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN447414
- Trial judge
- Brad A. Weinreb
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), O'Rourke, Laurence D. Rubin
Analysis
The trial court revoked Bennett's felony probation for multiple violations and sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in state prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable grounds for reversal after an independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of felony probation and imposition of a 16-month state prison sentence“The trial court sentenced him as he requested.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the trial court's exercise of discretion because it found no arguable grounds for reversal during its independent review of the record. The court affirmed the judgment based on the absence of error rather than a specific finding that the trial court acted within its discretion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request the court to independently review the record for error.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders memorandum that correctly identifies the procedural framework for reviewing a case where counsel finds no arguable issues. It relies on the court's independent review of the record to affirm the judgment, which is the appropriate mechanism for this type of appeal.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter Lee Bennett admitted a second violation of his felony probation for vandalism, the trial court revoked probation and, at his own request, sentenced him to the low term of 16 months. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable grounds for reversal, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and imposition of the low term of 16 months on the felony vandalism count following Bennett's admitted probation violation“Bennett, through counsel, requested that he be sentenced to the low term of 16 months on the felony vandalism. The trial court sentenced him as he requested.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Bennett admitted multiple probation violations (failure to report, new law violation, fentanyl possession) after already having been reinstated once, and he personally requested the 16-month low term that the court imposed. A defendant who invites the sentence cannot ordinarily complain of it on appeal, and imposing the lowest available term after repeated violations is well within sentencing discretion. The Wende review found nothing arguable, which is consistent with the record described. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, notified the defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, independently reviewed the record, and found no arguable issue, which is the correct disposition for a sentence the defendant himself requested after admitted probation violations. The memorandum opinion is brief and does not discuss the merits of the single issue counsel flagged, but no further analysis was required given the invited sentence.
Opinion
Filed 6/18/25 P. v. Bennett 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, D084557
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN447414)
LEE BENNETT,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Brad A. Weinreb, Judge. Affirmed. Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2023, Lee Bennett pled guilty to one count of felony vandalism.
(Pen. Code,1 § 594, subd. (a) & (b)(1)). In January 2024, the trial court placed Bennett on formal probation subject to various terms and conditions, including to obey all laws.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. In April 2024, Bennett pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)) and admitted he was in violation of his felony probation. The trial court reinstated Bennett on felony probation, after sentencing him to serve 60 days in custody for the petty theft. In July 2024, Bennett admitted he was again in violation of his felony probation, this time for failing to report to his probation officer, failing to obey all laws, and possessing fentanyl. Bennett, through counsel, requested that he be sentenced to the low term of 16 months on the felony vandalism. The trial court sentenced him as he requested. Bennett appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence. His appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of 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. Counsel identifies the following issue to assist the court in its review: “Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying probation and imposing a low-term sentence on Mr. Bennett following the violation of probation.” We notified Bennett of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he has not done so. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Bennett on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
DO, J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12