Filed 5/24/24 P. v. Williams CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B330998

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA082442) v.

TEVAUGHN WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Emily J. Cole, Judge. Affirmed. Breana Frankel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant Tevaughn Williams was charged by information with one count of pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (a)) and one count of intimate partner battery (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). On January 9, 2023, defendant pled no contest to intimate partner battery, in exchange for the dismissal of the count for pimping. The court accepted the plea agreement, stayed the imposition of the sentence for partner battery, and placed the defendant on four years of probation. As a term of defendant’s probation, the court imposed a protective order requiring defendant to stay away from and avoid contact with the victim. On April 3, 2023, defendant’s brother called the police, reporting that he witnessed defendant strike the victim. At a May 8, 2023, probation violation hearing, defendant’s brother testified that defendant and the victim had been living together in a room in the brother’s home since January 2023. He also testified that on April 3, 2023, he witnessed defendant strike the victim. Based on this testimony, the trial court found defendant had violated the terms of his probation and sentenced him to four years in prison. Defendant timely appealed. After reviewing the record, defendant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On December 18, 2023, we informed defendant that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response from defendant. We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. By virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our examination of the record, the defendant has received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v.

2 Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112– 113.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ZUKIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

COLLINS, Acting P. J.

MORI, J.

3