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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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