Filed 9/8/26 P. v. Gordon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086449
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN445081)
v.
NICHOLAS CHANDLER GORDON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Brad A. Weinreb, Judge. Affirmed.
Asya Ovsepyan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2023, Nicholas Chandler Gordon was involved in a traffic accident in
which another person was killed. Gordon was charged with multiple offenses
including gross vehicular manslaughter (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). The
charges included other offenses and enhancements. Prior to trial, Gordon
entered a guilty plea to the court. Gordon did not receive any concessions
from the prosecution as part of the plea agreement. The court indicated the
sentence would be 11 years in prison, suspended pending successful
completion of 11 years of formal probation. The grant of probation was
subject to 365 days in jail. The court sentenced consistently with its
assurances, and Gordon was placed on probation.
In November 2024, the probation department filed a motion to revoke
probation because new charges had been filed against Gordon. The probation
revocation hearing was conducted at the same time as the preliminary
hearing for the new offenses.
After the testimony was completed, the court revoked probation and
imposed the stayed, 11-year prison sentence.
Gordon filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s
refusal to reinstate probation.
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 offered
Gordon the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not
responded to our notice.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellate counsel has offered a summary of the facts of the offenses
and the hearing on the revocation of probation. We will include appellant’s
summary for background information.
2
“A. Statement of Facts Related to Superior Court Case Number
SCN445081.1
“On July 01, 2023, officers were dispatched to a multivehicle collision.
(CT 17.) Upon arrival, a white Kia Spectra was on its roof and a white Toyota
Corolla with crash damage was facing the wrong direction in the number
three lane. (CT 17.) The driver of the Toyota was determined to be appellant,
and he had a visible deformity to his right arm, laceration to his right eye,
and facial bruising. (CT 17.) The passenger of the Toyota had visible cuts and
bruising to his face and complained of pain to his hips and chest. (CT 17.) The
driver of the Kia was pronounced deceased on scene. (CT 17.) Appellant
admitted he was the driver of the Toyota, and it was determined that he had
a 0.121% blood alcohol concentration level about an hour and half after
driving. (CT 17.) Appellant’s blood was tested resulting in the presence of
marijuana, cocaine, morphine, fentanyl, benzoylecgonine and acetaminophen.
(CT 17.)
“A witness told officers appellant was observed to be travelling at a
speed of 100 miles per hour when he veered into the number two lane and
struck the rear of the Kia, causing the Kia to go “flying into the air” and rest
on its roof. (CT 18.)
1 “The statement of facts for Superior Court Case Number SCN445081
are derived from the probation officer’s report.”
3
“B. Statement of Facts Related to the Probation Violation.
“Deputy probation officer Jason Mageo was assigned to supervise
appellant while appellant was on probation. (Prelim Transcript 7.)2
Appellant had several conditions he needed to comply with for his probation.
(Prelim Transcript 7.) Some of the terms of probation were not to consume
alcohol, not to possess a deadly weapon, firearms, knives, and not to use or
possess controlled substances. (Prelim Transcript 7-8.)
“Mageo has conducted probation compliance checks at 3240 Mission
Avenue in Oceanside on three or four previous occasions. (Prelim Transcript
8.) It is a small studio apartment about 300 to 400 square feet. (Prelim
Transcript 9.) On October 30, 2024, at around 9:00 p.m., Mageo conducted a
probation compliance check with other probation officers at that address.
(Prelim Transcript 9.) Appellant was the only one present. (Prelim Transcript
9.) Appellant was breathalyzed upon contact to determine if he was under the
influence and the results were .04. (Prelim Transcript 10, 13.) During the
search of appellant’s apartment, a semiautomatic firearm was located in the
dresser. (Prelim Transcript 15, 28-29.) Towards the end, when Mageo was
walking out with appellant, a white substance, opined to be either cocaine or
methamphetamine, was located on the table with a sniffing device, which was
a rolled up five-dollar bill. (Prelim Transcript 15, 32.)
2 “The preliminary hearing transcript is from November 26, 2024,
whereas the court held both the probation violation hearing and the
preliminary hearing simultaneously. Additionally, appellant’s motion to
augment the record on appeal was granted on May 26, 2026, to include the
reporter’s transcript on appeal.”
4
“Appellant testified he was sharing his apartment with [his] brother
Matthew Gordon. (Prelim Transcript 52.) Gordon would stay at the
apartment about three or four nights out of the week. (Prelim Transcript 52.)
“Appellant relapsed and started drinking the week before he got
arrested for the probation violation. (Prelim Transcript 51.) Appellant had
gotten into an argument with his fiancée who did not allow appellant to see
his two-year-old daughter. (Prelim Transcript 50-51.) Appellant would not
drive to go see his daughter because he did not want to violate probation by
driving. (Prelim Transcript 51.)
“When officers searched the apartment appellant was in on October 30,
2024, the white crystalline substance found on the table was cocaine. (Prelim
Transcript 52.) Appellant was drinking and had used narcotics that night.
(Prelim Transcript 52.) Appellant was not seeking any counseling or
treatment at that time. (Prelim Transcript 52.)
“The gun the probation officers found in the apartment was not
appellant’s gun. (Prelim Transcript 53.) The gun was found in a drawer
belonging to Gordon. (Prelim Transcript 53.) Appellant keeps his belongings
in the closet and had notified the probation officers of that prior to the search.
(Prelim Transcript 53.)”
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential
merits of this appeal: whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to
reinstate Gordon to probation.
5
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. Gordon has been represented by competent counsel in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, Acting P. J.
BERMÚDEZ, 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.
6