People v. Ivans CA2/8 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/13/23 P. v. Ivans CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                   B326727
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                           Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. MA079121
    v.
    TYLER IVANS,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
    Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed.
    Richard Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
    for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    ____________________
    After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende
    (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende), we affirm. Statutory citations are
    to the Penal Code.
    A felony complaint charged Tyler Ivans with carrying a
    loaded handgun not registered to him in his vehicle in violation of
    section 25850, subdivisions (a) and (c)(6). Represented by
    counsel, Ivans waived his rights and entered a plea of no contest.
    The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Ivans on
    felony probation for three years, assessing various fees and
    imposing conditions.
    About a year and a half later, Ivans admitted to violating
    his probation. The court, on stipulation of the parties,
    terminated probation and imposed a new two-year term of
    probation. The court re-imposed the previous conditions of
    probation and added a few more.
    Five months later, the court revoked Ivans’s probation
    based on a probation report detailing that Ivans had failed to
    meet many of the conditions of his probation. The court
    remanded Ivans to custody and set a hearing on the probation
    violation.
    Defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss Ivans’s conviction
    as unconstitutional under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v.
    Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. —, 
    142 S.Ct. 2111
    . Counsel argued
    because California’s firearm licensing statute contained good
    moral character and good cause requirements it was
    unconstitutional and constituted an unlawful prior restraint on
    Ivans’s Second Amendment rights. The prosecutor opposed the
    motion, arguing the good cause requirement was severable and
    Bruen had not invalidated other public carry licensing
    requirements, including good moral character ones.
    At the hearing on the probation violation, the trial court
    heard and denied the motion to dismiss. Ivans waived his rights
    and admitted violating probation. Defense counsel argued
    Ivans’s no contest plea had only applied to a violation of
    subdivision (a) of section 25850, not subdivision (c)(6), and he
    2
    should therefore be sentenced based on a misdemeanor
    conviction. The trial court rejected this argument, finding the
    violations of subdivisions (a) and (c)(6) were both included in
    Count 1, to which Ivans had pleaded no contest. The trial court
    taking the plea had confirmed Ivans intended to plead no contest
    to Count 1 and had reiterated it would be a felony. The trial
    court then sentenced Ivans to the low term of 16 months (see
    §§ 25850, subd. (c)(6) & 1170, subd. (h)(1)) and awarded him a
    presentence credit of 141 days.
    Ivans appealed from matters arising after the plea, and we
    appointed counsel to represent him. Appointed counsel examined
    the record and filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking
    this court to review the record independently under Wende.
    Counsel also advised Ivans of his right to file a supplemental
    brief for us to consider. Ivans did not file a response.
    We have examined the entire appellate record. We are
    satisfied Ivans’s counsel fully complied with counsel’s
    responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (See Wende, supra,
    25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)
    DISPOSITION
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    WILEY, J.
    We concur:
    STRATTON, P. J.              VIRAMONTES, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B326727

Filed Date: 10/13/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2023