People v. Kent CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jul 31, 2014 No. G049669Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order revoking the defendant's probation after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant violated his probation.
Whether the defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Whether the trial court correctly calculated the defendant's custody and conduct credits.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Following the Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and the entire appellate record and discern no arguable issue.”

“Consequently, we affirm the judgment.”

Filed 7/31/14 P. v. Kent CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049669

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06WF3671)

DAVID NEIL KENT, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. Michelle C. Zehner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. * * *

A jury convicted David Neil Kent of possessing child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)(1)), all statutory references are to the Penal Code unless noted), attempting to distribute child pornography (§ 311.2, subd. (c); § 664), and distributing child pornography (§ 311.2, subd. (c)). It also convicted him of possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code § 11350). The court imposed a sentence of three years and four months,1 but suspended execution of the sentence and placed Kent on probation under various terms

and conditions, including a 365-day jail term and lifetime registration as a sex offender. We affirmed the judgment. (People v. Kent (Nov. 25, 2013, G047157) [nonpub. opn.].) In July 2013, the probation officer filed a petition alleging Kent violated probation. In January 2014, the probation officer filed a second violation petition. The trial court found Kent violated probation and lifted the suspension of his sentence. Kent’s appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel summarized the facts of the case, the procedural history, and possible legal issues with citations to the record and appropriate authority, but raised no specific issues, and asked this court to review the

People v. Kent CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

DAVID NEIL KENT, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ARONSON, J.

O’LEARY, P. J.

FYBEL, J.

AI Brief