From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Webster

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 30, 2018
D073319 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2018)

Opinion

D073319

07-30-2018

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VETERIAL LEE WEBSTER, Defendant and Appellant.

Raquel Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCD270355) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura Halgren, Judge. Affirmed. Raquel Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Veterial Lee Webster appeals following his admission of a probation violation and reinstatement of probation.

Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Webster has not responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having considered the briefing and having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 30, 2017, Webster pled guilty to carrying a loaded firearm on a person or vehicle while in a public place (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a)); possession of a firearm while possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)); and evading a peace officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). On March 1, 2017, the trial court placed Webster on three years formal probation and ordered that he serve 365 days in local custody.

On November 28, 2017, Webster admitted he had violated the terms of his probation by failing to submit to a search and failing to complete a cognitive behavioral counseling program. The trial court reinstated probation, and as an additional condition of probation, it prohibited Webster from affiliating with known gang members. Defense counsel objected to the gang condition, to which the court and the prosecutor both responded by pointing out that the probation officer's report stated that law enforcement had contacted Webster in the presence of a known member of a street gang several times in the past two months.

Webster filed a notice of appeal on December 28, 2017, from the order reinstating probation entered November 28, 2017.

On December 8, 2017, Webster was taken into custody due to charges of possession of a controlled substance and resisting arrest, and his probation in this case was summarily revoked. On January 29, 2018, the trial court found Webster to be in violation of the conditions of probation and revoked his probation. At a sentencing hearing on February 28, 2018, Webster was sentenced to three years in prison in this case.

II.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende.

Counsel has identified the following issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744): (1) "Whether the Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When it Ordered Appellant Not to Affiliate with Gang Members as an Additional Condition of Probation" and (2) "Whether the Gang Condition Issue is Moot Due to the 2018 Revocation Hearing."

After we received counsel's brief, we gave Webster an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but Webster did not respond.

A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Webster has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

IRION, J. WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J. HALLER, J.


Summaries of

People v. Webster

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 30, 2018
D073319 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2018)
Case details for

People v. Webster

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VETERIAL LEE WEBSTER, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 30, 2018

Citations

D073319 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2018)