People v. Bryant CA4/1

Filed 6/18/26 P. v. Bryant 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086415 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD304125) DONALD BRYANT, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Steven E. Stone, Judge. Affirmed.

Dan E. Chambers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Donald Bryant pleaded guilty to violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). Bryant was sentenced to a term of four years in prison with execution of sentence suspended, and he was placed on probation subject to 365 days in custody as a condition of the grant of probation.

After several months on probation, Bryant was arrested for failing to check in with the probation officer. At the subsequent evidentiary hearing, Bryant admitted violating probation. The suspended sentence was ordered into effect.

Bryant has appealed. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised Bryant of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Bryant has not responded to our notice or filed a supplemental brief. Neither Bryant nor appellate counsel have identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, based on the present record.

DISCUSSION Appellate counsel has provided a summary of the evidence and procedure presented in the evidentiary hearing for revocation of probation.

We will incorporate that summary here to provide background for this appeal.

On May 8, 2025, San Diego Police Department Officer Zachary Richardson was working a downtown San Diego crime suppression detail.

Officer Richardson noticed appellant in the area of 16th Street and K Street.

This area is known as an “open air drug market.” (Ibid.) Officer Richardson observed appellant interacting with another individual and observed what he believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction. Officer Richardson contacted appellant and learned that appellant was on formal probation. Officer Richardson then contacted appellant's probation officer. Officer Richardson concluded that appellant was in violation of the stay away order by being in the area of 1600 K Street and arrested appellant for being in violation of his probation.

Christopher Douville, appellant's probation officer, testified that appellant was supposed to check into the probation program after he reported to probation on March 24, 2025. However, appellant failed to check into his probation program. Efforts to contact appellant about his failure to check in with the probation department were unsuccessful.

Appellant testified at the hearing. He stated that he was not involved in a drug transaction on 17th Street but instead was exchanging money with his friend, Jerome Hall. He also testified that he was in the area because he was going to pick up his mail at the Neil Good Day Center. Appellant also claimed that he had reported to probation as directed. However, on cross- examination, appellant admitted that he did not contact probation to try to reschedule his program meeting. He also admitted to being in the area of the stay away order earlier on the day of his arrest.

Appellate counsel has not identified any possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. Counsel should have identified any possible issues that were considered in order to comply with the requirements of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. We regret that counsel did not address Anders the briefing in this case. However, we are satisfied there are no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We are satisfied counsel’s omission of “Anders” issues in the discussion in this appeal has not prejudiced Bryant, DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.