People v. Lloyd CA1/5

Filed 7/18/23 P. v. Lloyd CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166030 v. LEODIS JAMES LLOYD, (Marin County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SC197289A)

Defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence revoking mandatory supervision based on probation violations. Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) requesting that this court independently review the record on appeal to determine whether it contains any arguable issues. This appeal is not subject to Wende review because it is not a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226–228 (Delgadillo); People v. Freeman (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 126, 134 (Freeman).) Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND In September 2017, while in prison custody in Marin County for a prior offense, defendant was charged with possession of controlled substances in

1

prison on or about March 21, 2016 (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a); count 1);1 sale of a controlled substance on or about March 21, 2016 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a); count 2); and possession of controlled substances in prison on or about March 27, 2016 (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a); count 3). The information also alleged that defendant served two prior prison terms.2 On March 13, 2018, defendant pleaded guilty to count 1 on the condition that the remaining counts be dismissed at sentencing and with the understanding that he faced a maximum penalty of six years, comprised of the upper term of four years, enhanced by two consecutive one-year prior prison term enhancements. On July 9, 2018, the court found defendant eligible for a split sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), with a portion of his sentence to be a period of mandatory supervision. Defendant was ordered to appear for sentencing at a subsequent hearing, which was continued to December 2018. In December 2018, defendant’s counsel requested that the court sentence defendant to three years of mandatory supervision and no jail time. The trial court denied defendant’s request. The court sentenced defendant to the low term of two years for violation of section 4573.6, subdivision (a), and one year for his prior prison enhancement. Pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B), the trial court ordered defendant to serve one year in custody, consecutive to any other sentence, and two years on mandatory supervision.