Filed 8/27/26 P. v. Powell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
D086278
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. SCD298271)
v.
ANGELO PARISH POWELL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County.
Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed.
Heather Monasky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Angelo Parish Powell entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated
sentence. Powell pleaded guilty to robbery in exchange for a negotiated
settlement. In response to his plea, the parties agreed Powell would receive
three years formal probation and a one-year jail sentence. The court stayed
execution of a five-year prison sentence. The court granted Powell three
years formal probation subject to conditions to prevent Powell from having
and using weapons.
Powell’s probation was violated twice after he was released from
custody for failing to report.
In April 2025, the court found Powell in violation of probation. The
court ultimately revoked Powell’s probation and imposed the suspended
prison term. Powell 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 Powell that he could file his own brief on appeal. He has
not responded by filing any supplemental briefs.
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 five possible issues that were considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
Was the hatchet used in this case a weapon?
Is condition No. 12f overbroad or vague as applied to Powell?
Is condition 12f reasonable as applied to Powell?
Are conditions 6d and 12f vague when they are interpreted together?
Did the court abuse its discretion by lifting the stay and imposing a
prison sentence?
2
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 Powell in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, 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