legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Howard CA2/6

nhaleem's Membership Status

Registration Date: Aug 17, 2021
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 08:17:2021 - 16:49:06

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
In re Skyla G. CA2/1
P. v. Ariaz CA2/7
In re Marcus P. CA2/7
P. v. Johnson CA2/2
P. v. Escobar-Lopez CA1/4

Find all listings submitted by nhaleem
P. v. Howard CA2/6
By
05:06:2022

Filed 3/8/22 P. v. Howard CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRETT EVANS HOWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B313429

(Super. Ct. No. 2020033173)

(Ventura County)

Brett Evans Howard appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),[1] false personation of another (§ 529, subd. (a)(3)), giving false information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)), escape from arrest (§ 836.6, subd. (b)), and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant was sentenced to two years and eight months in state prison.

In November 2020, appellant stole a power tool from Home Depot and escaped police custody after his arrest. Following a two-hour search that included multiple units, a helicopter, drones, and a SWAT team, a K-9 officer located appellant hiding in an avocado tree in an orchard behind the police station.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. On November 29, 2021, we notified appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. The 30 days have since passed, and appellant has not presented any contentions or issues for our consideration.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with counsel’s responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.

Anthony Sabo, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Adrian Dresel-Velasquez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.


[1] All further references are to the Penal Code.





Description Brett Evans Howard appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), false personation of another (§ 529, subd. (a)(3)), giving false information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)), escape from arrest (§ 836.6, subd. (b)), and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant was sentenced to two years and eight months in state prison.
In November 2020, appellant stole a power tool from Home Depot and escaped police custody after his arrest. Following a two-hour search that included multiple units, a helicopter, drones, and a SWAT team, a K-9 officer located appellant hiding in an avocado tree in an orchard behind the police station.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. On November 29, 2021, we notified appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 2 views. Averaging 2 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale