People v. Bryant CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD304125
- Trial judge
- Steven E. Stone
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court revoked Bryant's probation and ordered the execution of his suspended four-year prison sentence after he admitted to violating probation by failing to check in with his probation officer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal on independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and execution of suspended sentence“The suspended sentence was ordered into effect.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders review where counsel identified no issues. The court states it is 'satisfied there are no arguable issues for reversal on appeal' but does not explicitly articulate the standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence) or analyze the trial court's factual findings regarding the probation violation. The court relies on the absence of identified issues rather than a substantive legal analysis of the revocation decision. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to identify any possible issues considered in evaluating the merits of an appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende and Anders requirements, explicitly noting counsel's failure to identify issues and the court's subsequent independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to articulate the specific standard of review for probation revocation or provide any substantive legal analysis of the trial court's findings, relying solely on the negative finding of no arguable issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe trial court found Donald Bryant in violation of probation after an evidentiary hearing on his failure to check in with probation and his presence in a stay-away area, and ordered the previously suspended four-year prison sentence into effect. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Bryant filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and execution of the previously suspended four-year prison sentence following an evidentiary hearing“After several months on probation, Bryant was arrested for failing to check in with the probation officer. At the subsequent evidentiary hearing, Bryant admitted violating probation. The suspended sentence was ordered into effect.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review; it conducts independent Wende review of the record. The record summary shows the probation officer testified Bryant failed to check into his program and that Bryant admitted on cross-examination he did not contact probation to reschedule and was in the stay-away area, which is sufficient under the preponderance standard governing revocation. Because execution of sentence had been suspended, the court had no discretion to alter the term once it revoked probation, so execution of the four-year term was proper. The opinion's statement that Bryant 'admitted violating probation' sits awkwardly with its description of a contested hearing at which he testified he had reported as directed, but the cross-examination admissions support the finding either way. |
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 should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court noted counsel failed to identify such issues but found no prejudice.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies Wende correctly, describes the facts and procedure, notes counsel's failure to flag Anders issues, and reasonably finds no prejudice given the strength of the revocation record. It does not address whether Wende review is required at all for an appeal from a post-judgment probation revocation order, and its statement that Bryant 'admitted' the violation is in tension with its own account of a contested hearing, but neither affects the result.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 6/18/26 P. v. Bryant 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, D086415
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD304125)
DONALD BRYANT,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Steven E. Stone, Judge. Affirmed. Dan E. Chambers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Donald Bryant pleaded guilty to violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). Bryant was sentenced to a term of four years in prison with execution of sentence suspended, and he was placed on probation subject to 365 days in custody as a condition of the grant of probation. After several months on probation, Bryant was arrested for failing to check in with the probation officer. At the subsequent evidentiary hearing, Bryant admitted violating probation. The suspended sentence was ordered into effect. Bryant has appealed. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised Bryant of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Bryant has not responded to our notice or filed a supplemental brief. Neither Bryant nor appellate counsel have identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, based on the present record. DISCUSSION Appellate counsel has provided a summary of the evidence and procedure presented in the evidentiary hearing for revocation of probation. We will incorporate that summary here to provide background for this appeal. On May 8, 2025, San Diego Police Department Officer Zachary Richardson was working a downtown San Diego crime suppression detail. Officer Richardson noticed appellant in the area of 16th Street and K Street. This area is known as an “open air drug market.” (Ibid.) Officer Richardson observed appellant interacting with another individual and observed what he believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction. Officer Richardson contacted appellant and learned that appellant was on formal probation. Officer Richardson then contacted appellant's probation officer. Officer Richardson concluded that appellant was in violation of the stay away order by being in the area of 1600 K Street and arrested appellant for being in violation of his probation. Christopher Douville, appellant's probation officer, testified that appellant was supposed to check into the probation program after he reported to probation on March 24, 2025. However, appellant failed to check into his probation program. Efforts to contact appellant about his failure to check in with the probation department were unsuccessful. Appellant testified at the hearing. He stated that he was not involved in a drug transaction on 17th Street but instead was exchanging money with his friend, Jerome Hall. He also testified that he was in the area because he was going to pick up his mail at the Neil Good Day Center. Appellant also claimed that he had reported to probation as directed. However, on cross- examination, appellant admitted that he did not contact probation to try to reschedule his program meeting. He also admitted to being in the area of the stay away order earlier on the day of his arrest. Appellate counsel has not identified any possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. Counsel should have identified any possible issues that were considered in order to comply with the requirements of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. We regret that counsel did not address Anders the briefing in this case. However, we are satisfied there are no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We are satisfied counsel’s omission of “Anders” issues in the discussion in this appeal has not prejudiced Bryant, DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12