Filed 6/26/26 P. v. Edwards CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, B345853
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA510037)
v.
RUDOLPH ARNOLD
EDWARDS, III,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Deborah S. Brazil, Judge. Affirmed.
Tyler C. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________
Rudolph Arnold Edwards, III appeals after the trial court
sentenced him to two years in prison when Edwards violated the
terms of his felony probation. We appointed counsel to represent
Edwards on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel for
Edwards filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 that did not identify any arguable issues. After
independently reviewing the record, we have not identified any
either. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2022 Edwards was charged by
information with two counts of assault with a semiautomatic
firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (b); counts 1 & 5); three counts
of making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); counts 2, 6 & 16);
one count of misdemeanor battery upon Lisa S., Edwards’s
spouse, cohabitant, girlfriend, or child’s parent (§ 243,
subd. (e)(1); count 3); two counts of violating a court order with
allegations of violence and a prior violation (§ 166, subd. (c)(1),
(4); counts 4 & 17); one count of felony child abuse (§ 273a,
subd. (a); count 11); two counts of misdemeanor child abuse
(§ 273a, subd. (b); counts 12 & 13); two counts of being a felon in
possession of a firearm (on two separate occasions) (§ 29800,
subd. (a)(1); counts 15 & 18); one misdemeanor count of resisting
arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 19); and one count of brandishing
a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1); count 20). The information
further alleged as to all felony counts that Edwards had been
1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
2
convicted of a prior serious or violent felony as defined by section
667, subdivision (d), and 1170.12, subdivision (b).
On February 8, 2023 the People advised the trial court
(Judge Eleanor Hunter) that “the two main victims in this case
who were involved in these two different incident dates have
repeatedly refused to come to court” and “each was actually
served for the jury trial this week [and] neither one showed up.”
Consequently, the People indicated they were willing to offer a
plea deal to Edwards: in exchange for pleading no contest to
count 15 (felon in possession of a firearm) and agreeing to a
criminal protective order protecting victim Lisa S. under section
136.2,2 Edwards would be placed on two years formal probation
and the remaining charges and prior strike allegation would be
dismissed. Edwards agreed to the plea deal.
After the trial court advised Edwards regarding his rights
to a trial and the consequences of a plea, Edwards pleaded no
contest to count 15 (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The court specifically
advised Edwards one of the terms of probation was not
possessing a firearm and another was obeying the protective
order prohibiting him from coming within 100 yards of Lisa S.
The court further explained that “if you violate any term or
condition of your probation, then you could serve up to three
2 Section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1), states that “[w]hen a
criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving
domestic violence, ... the court, at the time of sentencing, shall
consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any
contact with a victim of the crime.” Although defense counsel
argued that section 136.2 did not apply because Edwards was not
pleading to a domestic violence offense, the trial court indicated
this was “part of [the People’s] offer” and “[i]f your client doesn’t
want to accept that, he doesn’t have to.”
3
years in the state prison.” Edwards indicated he understood, and
the trial court placed him on two years of formal probation. The
court dismissed the remaining counts and waived all fines and
fees.
On January 29, 2025, approximately one week before his
probation was set to expire, Edwards was arrested for
threatening Lisa S., firing a gun in front of her home, and then
leading the police on a seven-mile car pursuit.
The superior court (Judge Deborah Brazil) conducted a
contested probation violation hearing on April 25, 2025. The
People played an audio recording of Lisa S.’s 911 call over the
defense objection on hearsay and confrontation clause grounds.
The court found the 911 call fell within the hearsay exceptions for
excited utterances (Evid. Code, § 1240) and contemporaneous
statements (id., § 1241). The court found there was no
confrontation clause violation “because the witness was clearly
reporting an ongoing emergency, attempting to seek help …
where ... [t]he defendant was not only shooting but advancing
onto the porch of her house while she was on the 911 call.” In
addition to Lisa S.’s statements to the 911 operator, the People
argued a gunshot could be heard on the audio recording. An
officer testified that although the police were unable to locate the
firearm, they found “two spent 40-millimeter casing in the
driveway” of Lisa S.’s residence.
The People also introduced a pursuing police officer’s body-
worn video. After initially objecting to introduction of the video,
the defense withdrew its objection when the People indicated
they would not rely on the portion that captured Lisa S.’s
statements and instead would rely only on the portion capturing
the pursuit of Edwards.
4
The defense did not introduce any evidence.
The trial court found Edwards in violation of his probation.
The court explained that “the driving and the pursuit is the least
of the seriousness of the defendant’s violations of probation. The
gun and the shot that was heard on the 911 call and the victim’s
demeanor on the 911 call are deeply disturbing to the court and
[demonstrate] the dangerousness of the defendant. [¶] So the
court finds the defendant in violation of probation for failing to
obey all laws, failing to obey the criminal protective order, being
a felon in possession of a firearm, shooting; at the very least,
negligent discharge of a firearm, if not discharge of a firearm into
a dwelling.”
The superior court terminated probation and sentenced
Edwards to two years in state prison (the middle term for a
violation of section 29800, subdivision (a)(1)), with 600 days of
actual credit.
Edwards timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Edwards in this appeal.
After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues.
Appointed counsel advised Edwards on March 23, 2026 that he
could personally submit a supplemental brief. Appointed counsel
also sent Edwards the record on appeal and a copy of the
appellate brief. This court also sent a letter to Edwards on
March 23, 2026 advising him that “[w]ithin 30 days of the date of
this notice, appellant may submit a supplemental brief or letter
stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments
which appellant wishes this court to consider.” We received no
response from Edwards.
5
We have examined the record and are satisfied appellate
counsel for Edwards has complied with counsel’s responsibilities
and there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)
528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-
119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
STONE, J.
We concur:
MARTINEZ, P. J.
FEUER, J.
6