Filed 8/20/26 P. v. Ogden CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H054120
(Monterey County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 25CR000719)
v.
GANNON OGDEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Gannon Ogden appeals from the judgment imposing a
previously suspended 16-month county jail sentence, after the trial court found
Ogden was in violation of his felony probation. Appointed counsel for Ogden
filed an opening brief which provides the procedural and factual background of the
case but raises no legal challenge to the disposition. Counsel asks this court to
conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any
arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Ogden
was advised of the right to file written arguments on his own behalf but has not
responded.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Procedural background
On February 24, 2025, the Monterey County District Attorney filed an
information charging Ogden with one felony count of second degree robbery (Pen.
Code,1 § 211; count 1) and one misdemeanor count of resisting, obstructing or
delaying a peace officer or EMT (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2).
On April 1, 2025, the trial court amended the information to add a felony
count of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c); count 3). That same day, the parties entered
into a plea agreement pursuant to which Ogden agreed to plead no contest to count
3 in exchange for being placed on felony probation and dismissal of the remaining
counts. The prosecution further agreed Ogden could apply for a reduction of
count 3 to a misdemeanor in the event that he had no probation violations in the
first 12 months.
On June 17, 2025, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and
placed Ogden on probation for two years. The trial court dismissed counts 1 and 2
in the interests of justice (§ 1385). The court also imposed a $300 restitution fund
fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), an identical $300 probation revocation fund fine
(§ 1202.44, stayed pending successful completion of probation), a crime
prevention fund fine of $10.00 plus $31.00 in penalty assessments for a total of
$41.00 (§ 1202.5), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and
a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
On August 12, 2025, the probation officer filed a petition alleging that
Ogden had violated his probation on August 9, 2025, by failing to obey all laws.
On August 19, 2025, Ogden admitted violating his probation. The trial
court revoked and reinstated probation on condition that Ogden serve 364 days in
county jail, with 145 days of credits (73 days of custody credits plus conduct
credits of 72 days). The trial court authorized Ogden’s release to probation for
placement in a residential treatment program and extended probation by five days
to June 22, 2027.
1
Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
On December 29, 2025, the probation officer filed a petition alleging that
Ogden had violated his probation on December 23, 2025, by failing to obey all
laws. Ogden subsequently admitted violating his probation.
On January 29, 2026, the trial court terminated probation and sentenced
Ogden to the lower term of 16 months on count 3. The trial court awarded 264
days of credit, consisting of 132 days of custody credits and 132 days of conduct
credits (§ 4019). The trial court further imposed the previously stayed $300
probation revocation fund fine (§ 1202.44).
Ogden timely appealed.
B. Factual background2
On January 30, 2025, Monterey police officers responded to the report of a
theft at a pub. The reporting party, K.W.,3 told police that he and two female
companions exited the pub and saw two males, one of whom was later identified
as Ogden, arguing with each other. The two men, who appeared to be drunk or on
drugs, approached and tried to talk to K.W.’s companions. K.W. told his
companions they should go into a nearby pharmacy for their safety. As they
walked toward the pharmacy, Ogden removed his shirt, jumped over a fence
between the parking lot and the pharmacy, and ran toward K.W. Ogden
confronted K.W. and grabbed the collar of his jacket, which was unzipped. K.W.
spun around and ran into the pharmacy, leaving Ogden holding his jacket. K.W.
called for help and Ogden ran off.
2
Because Ogden pleaded no contest prior to the preliminary examination,
we derive the facts from the probation reports and other documents in the record
on appeal.
3
We refer to the victim by his initials to protect his privacy interests.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).)
3
Shortly thereafter, a police officer located Ogden, whom the officer
recognized from prior contacts. The officer exited his patrol vehicle, identified
himself, and directed Ogden to stop. Ogden tried to ride off on a skateboard, but
the officer tackled him. Ogden fought with the officer but was taken into custody
after additional officers arrived on the scene.
II. DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Concluding that there is no arguable issue on appeal that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Ogden, we affirm the judgment.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4
____________________________
WILSON, J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________
LIE, Acting P. J.
_____________________________
BROMBERG, J.
People v. Ogden
H054120