gno.law

People v. Walker CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · B330842 · 2024-03-20 · Unpublished

Area
criminal
Panel
Arthur Gilbert (author), Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Tari L. Cody

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 3/20/24 P. v. Walker CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B330842 (Super. Ct. No. KA129081) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

JAVEN LUKE WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Javen Luke Walker appeals a judgment following a trial court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation. In 2022, Walker pled no contest to assault with a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2).) He was sentenced to four years in prison. Execution of the sentence was suspended and he was placed on formal probation for two years. In 2023, after a contested probation violation hearing, the court found Walker violated probation by possessing weapons. The court imposed a sentence of four years in state prison with a total of 537 days custody credits. We appointed counsel to represent Walker on this appeal. Counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and stated she was unable to find any arguable issues to brief. On January 29, 2024, we sent notice to Walker notifying him about his right to file a supplemental brief setting forth any issues he wanted this court to consider. Walker did not file a supplemental brief. After a review of the record, we conclude there has been no showing of any arguable issues for this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

BALTODANO, J.

CODY, J.

2 Joan M. Chrostek, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________ Lise M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Cites, in this corpus