Opinion
D081875
01-16-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHANIEL COBB III, Defendant and Appellant.
Larenda R. Delaini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCD291067 David J. Danielsen, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Diego Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Larenda R. Delaini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CASTILLO, J.
Nathaniel Cobb III appeals from a judgment following a contested probation revocation hearing. 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 informed Cobb of his right to personally file a brief, and he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 6, 2022, in case number SCD291067, Cobb pleaded guilty to battery (Pen. Code, § 242) and admitted the offense occurred to intimidate the victim based on race (§ 422.7, subd. (a)). At the same time, in case number SCD292647, Cobb pleaded guilty to assault by means of force likely (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
At the sentencing hearing for both cases on August 3, 2022, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and ordered Cobb to complete two years of formal probation. The conditions for probation included a requirement that he "[o]bey all laws" and "not unlawfully use force, threats, or violence on another person."
A contested probation violation hearing was held on February 14, 2023, based on an allegation that Cobb had violated probation by assaulting a San Diego trolley officer. At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the admission of video surveillance and photographic stills of the incident. The People also presented testimony from the trolley officer involved in the altercation. He claimed Cobb assaulted him after he attempted to escort Cobb from the trolley for not paying a fare. According to the trolley officer, Cobb was blocking the exit door, and as the trolley officer attempted to go around him, Cobb punched him in the face. In response, Cobb testified the trolley officer had attempted to remove him with force, which is why he responded with force. According to Cobb, he only used the same amount of force as the trolley officer used against him.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court found Cobb had violated his probation by failing to remain law abiding and using force or violence against the trolley officer.
At a subsequent hearing on March 10, 2023, the trial court determined that if probation was reinstated, there was not a reasonable possibility that Cobb would successfully complete probation. Accordingly, his probation was revoked and the stay on the previously imposed sentence was lifted. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Cobb to an aggregate term of six years in state prison.
DISCUSSION
Cobb'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 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 identifies the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error:
(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding it unlikely that Cobb would successfully complete probation; and
(2) whether the trial court's finding that Cobb violated probation is supported by sufficient evidence.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Cobb on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: DATO, Acting P. J. DO, J.