People v. Williams CA2/4 ( 2024 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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