Filed 1/19/18 P. v. Scott CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY THOMAS SCOTT,

Defendant and Appellant.
B280919

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA139916)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. H. Clay Jacke, II, Judge. Affirmed.
David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________


On May 24, 2016, defendant and appellant Anthony Thomas Scott entered a plea of no contest in case No. TA139916 to assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on formal probation for three years. Probation was ultimately revoked and terminated on November 9, 2016, based on the trial court’s evaluation of evidence received in defendant’s jury trial in case No. TA140763. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the upper term of four years. He appeals from the judgment.
This court appointed counsel for defendant on appeal. On December 8, 2017, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but requesting this court to independently review the record for arguable contentions pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised by letter from this court of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and no supplemental brief has been filed.
We have completed our independent review of the record and determine that there are no arguable appellate issues. Defendant was given notice of the conditions of probation in May 2016. Defendant was advised by the trial court that the probation violation in the instant case would be heard simultaneously with the jury trial. The trial court’s finding that defendant violated probation is supported by substantial evidence that defendant threatened to kill a security guard while armed with a small knife and defendant refused repeated lawful orders from responding law enforcement officers. The sentence imposed was within the range permitted by law.
Given this record, we are satisfied that appellate counsel has fulfilled his obligation on appeal of providing a basis for adequate and effective appellate review.


The judgment is affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 284.)


KRIEGLER, Acting P.J.

We concur:



BAKER J.



RAPHAEL, J.