Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mark Lawrence Reyes pleaded no contest in September 2023 to felony possession of methamphetamine in Kings County Superior Court case No. 23CM1523, admitting the offense was punishable as a felony because of a 1993 forcible rape conviction that required sex offender registration. The trial court dismissed a second count and a strike allegation, then placed him on two years of felony probation with conditions including reporting to probation and completing a drug rehabilitation program through the Veterans Administration.
Reyes repeatedly violated probation. On October 4, 2023, the court held a hearing on allegations that he failed to report as ordered and was found in possession of 7.2 grams of methamphetamine, and revoked probation. On November 29, 2023, he admitted violating probation by possessing methamphetamine, failing to charge his ankle monitor, and failing to enroll in a VA drug program; the court suspended execution of sentence and reinstated him on probation. At a January 26, 2024 review hearing, the court found he was enrolled in a VA housing program and a peer support/individual therapy program. In April 2024, after a contested hearing, the court declined to find a willful violation over enrollment issues but modified probation to require entry into a substance abuse program within 30 days. That same month, a new complaint in case No. 24CM0846 charged him with possessing methamphetamine while in custody in jail; he pleaded no contest in May 2024 and was again placed on probation, admitting the new offense violated his existing probation.
Further violations followed. After a September 2024 hearing, the trial court declared a doubt about Reyes's competency, suspended proceedings, and ultimately committed him to the Department of State Hospitals in December 2024. His competency was restored in January 2025, proceedings were reinstated, and he admitted violating probation by missing court dates; the court again reinstated probation. In July 2025, after another contested hearing, the court found he violated probation by failing to report to the probation office and failing to update his contact information. On August 6, 2025, the court denied probation and sentenced him to the midterm of two years in the first case and the lower term of two years in the second case, finding his custody credits had fully or nearly served the terms.
The Court’s Holding
On appeal, Reyes's appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, summarizing the facts with record citations, raising no issues, and asking the court to independently review the record. Counsel declared he advised Reyes of the filing and of his right to submit a supplemental brief, and a copy was delivered to Reyes. The Court of Appeal also sent Reyes a letter inviting a supplemental brief, but the letter was returned as undeliverable with a note that he had been paroled; additional letters to three addresses obtained from the trial court and defense counsel were also returned undeliverable. Reyes filed no supplemental brief.
After independent review of the record, the court found that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues existed. The court therefore affirmed the judgment in both cases.
Key Takeaways
- A Wende brief allows appointed appellate counsel to raise no issues while asking the court to independently review the record for arguable error, and the defendant retains the right to file a supplemental brief.
- The court made documented efforts to notify the defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, including letters to the prison and to multiple addresses, all of which were returned undeliverable after his parole.
- The trial court declined to find a willful probation violation at one contested hearing because communication problems with the VA undermined the evidence, showing that contested probation hearings can turn on the credibility and completeness of the proof.
- Repeated probation violations, a new offense committed while in custody, and a failure to report after reinstatement ultimately led the trial court to deny probation and impose prison terms that were largely or fully satisfied by custody credits.
- The case illustrates the full cycle of probation supervision, revocation, competency suspension and restoration, and eventual sentencing in a California superior court.
Why It Matters
The decision is a routine application of the Wende procedure, under which an appellate court conducts an independent review of the record when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. It demonstrates the court's practice of attempting to reach a defendant who has been paroled before concluding the supplemental-brief process, and confirms that repeated probation violations and a new in-custody offense can support denial of probation and imposition of prison terms.