Filed 7/6/26 P. v. Glenn 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086558
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCE428339)
v.
THOMAS GLENN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Affirmed.
Michelle C. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In November 2024, Thomas Glenn entered into a plea agreement in
which he pleaded guilty to one count of transportation of a controlled
substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). The parties agreed to a
stipulated sentence. The court imposed an upper term of five years but
suspended the execution of sentence and granted Glenn formal probation.
The court also found Glenn violated a probation grant in a separate case No.
SCN4465533. The court imposed a suspended three-year term in that case.
Following a preliminary hearing in case No. SCD307077, the court held
a hearing and revoked Glenn’s probation. The court imposed suspended
sentences. The court ordered Glenn to serve 556 days in jail and the
remainder of his sentence to be served in mandatory supervision under Penal
Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B).
Glenn filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) 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 Glenn of his right to file his own brief on appeal, but he has
not responded.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738
(Anders) counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court properly
found Glenn to be in violation of the terms of his probation; and whether the
court erred in refusing to reinstate Glenn on probation.
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Glenn in this appeal.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
DATO, 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.
3