People v. Taylor CA2/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/31/24 P. v. Taylor CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, B328563
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. GA103347-01
JUSTIN JAYLEN TAYLOR,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed.
A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Justin Jaylen Taylor appeals his conviction for first
degree residential burglary. Taylor’s counsel has asked us
independently to review the record under People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.
In April 2018 the People charged Taylor, together with a
co-defendant, with the attempted first degree burglary, person
present, of one victim (count 1) and the first degree residential
burglary of another victim (count 2). On March 5, 2019, Taylor
entered into a plea agreement with the People. Taylor pleaded
to the second count in exchange for three years of formal
felony probation and 365 days in the county jail. As part of
the plea deal, the People dismissed count 1.
In July 2019, Taylor was arrested. Based on that new
arrest, the court revoked Taylor’s probation. On August 6, 2019,
Taylor admitted the probation violation in exchange for time
served.
In June 2020, Taylor was arrested again. The court again
revoked Taylor’s probation based on the new arrest.
On July 8, 2020, the court transferred Taylor’s probation
case to the court handling his new case, MA079232. That case
apparently went to trial in January 2023. A jury convicted
Taylor on a number of felony counts, including three counts
of kidnapping to commit robbery, home invasion robbery,
first degree residential burglary/person present, conspiracy
to commit first degree burglary, and attempted first degree
residential burglary, as well as misdemeanor counts of child
endangerment and battery on an elder. Taylor admitted his
strike prior. The trial court sentenced Taylor to multiple life
terms plus a determinate sentence of 27 years and four months.
2
The court also found Taylor in violation of his probation in
this case for “failing to obey all laws by picking up that new case
and being convicted in MA079232.” The court asked Taylor’s
counsel if he wished to be heard on the probation violation and
counsel replied, “No. Thank you.” The court then terminated
Taylor’s probation and sentenced him to 16 months as one-third
the midterm.
Taylor appealed. Taylor’s retained counsel checked a box
on the notice of appeal form that stated, “This appeal is after
a jury or court trial.” Although the form included a box that
applies after an admission of a probation violation, Taylor’s
counsel did not check that box. Notwithstanding counsel’s error,
on June 5, 2023, the Administrative Presiding Justice of this
court issued an order stating, “This appeal . . . is limited to
issues that do not require a Certificate of Probable Cause.”
We appointed counsel to represent Taylor in this appeal.
After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief
raising no issues and asking this court independently to review
the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel stated he
had advised Taylor that he could file a supplemental brief within
30 days. On November 8, 2023, we sent a letter directing counsel
to send the record of this appeal and a copy of his opening brief to
Taylor, and noting Taylor could file a supplemental brief raising
any contentions or arguments he wished this court to consider.
We have not received any supplemental brief from Taylor.
We have independently reviewed the record and find no
arguable issues. We are satisfied that Taylor’s counsel has fully
complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues
exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
3
DISPOSITION
We affirm Justin Jaylen Taylor’s conviction.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EGERTON, Acting P. J.
We concur:
ADAMS, J.
BERSHON, J.

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
4