Filed 6/18/25 P. v. Bennett CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

THE PEOPLE, D084557 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN447414) LEE BENNETT, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Brad A. Weinreb, Judge. Affirmed.

Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2023, Lee Bennett pled guilty to one count of felony vandalism. (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subd. (a) & (b)(1)). In January 2024, the trial court placed Bennett on formal probation subject to various terms and conditions, including to obey all laws.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. In April 2024, Bennett pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)) and admitted he was in violation of his felony probation. The trial court reinstated Bennett on felony probation, after sentencing him to serve 60 days in custody for the petty theft.

In July 2024, Bennett admitted he was again in violation of his felony probation, this time for failing to report to his probation officer, failing to obey all laws, and possessing fentanyl. Bennett, through counsel, requested that he be sentenced to the low term of 16 months on the felony vandalism.

The trial court sentenced him as he requested.

Bennett appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence. His appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 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. Counsel identifies the following issue to assist the court in its review: “Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying probation and imposing a low-term sentence on Mr. Bennett following the violation of probation.” We notified Bennett of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he has not done so. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Bennett on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

DO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.