Full Opinion

Filed 10/27/26 P. v. Dubose CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, B349388 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 24CMCF01627) DESHON DUBOSE, Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT: On September 5, 2024, Jonathan Z.1 and Angel A., each driving a tow truck, attempted to tow two illegally parked cars. Deshon Dubose approached the driver’s side of Jonathan’s truck with a raised pickaxe, as if to swing it. Dubose next struck the rear of Angel’s truck with the pickaxe. After Jonathan and Angel fled, the police arrived and arrested Dubose. An information charged Dubose with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and alleged several prior felony convictions (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)) and aggravating circumstances (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421). 1 We refer to the victims by their first names and last initials to protect their privacy interests. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).) On July 15, 2025, Dubose pled no contest to both charges and admitted the priors and aggravating circumstances. The trial court imposed a suspended sentence of five years and placed Dubose on probation with terms and conditions that included abstaining from the use of controlled substances and completing a 12-month residential recovery program at Gift of Life Recovery (Gift of Life). On August 8, 2025, Gift of Life notified the trial court that it had terminated Dubose from the program on August 3, 2025. The notice explained Dubose tested positive for PCP and THC during a routine drug screening and refused to comply with a directive to surrender the keys to his truck following the positive drug screen. Dubose had repeatedly violated program rules and expectations, including: (1) bringing a personal truck to the facility despite being restricted by a 30-day blackout period that prohibited the use of personal vehicles; (2) being involved in multiple disruptive incidents with other residents; and (3) repeatedly attempting to find excuses to leave the facility. The trial court revoked Dubose’s probation and held a contested hearing on the probation violation. Two Gift of Life staff members testified consistently with the notice. One of those witnesses testified that after Dubose violated program rules, he attempted to counsel Dubose and gave Dubose an opportunity to succeed in the program. Dubose, however, said he did not want to be a part of the program. Dubose testified on his own behalf. He stated he had Gift of Life’s permission to bring his truck and leave the premises. He also testified he did not do drugs while in the program. According to Dubose, he tested positive for PCP because he had put on a pair of shoes that had PCP in them. And he tested positive for 2 THC because he had used it prior to entering the program. Regarding arguments with residents, Dubose admitted he engaged in a verbal altercation with another resident but stated they got over their problems. Dubose also denied he wanted to leave the Gift of Life program. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Dubose violated probation and imposed the previously suspended five-year sentence. Dubose timely appealed. We appointed counsel to represent Dubose on appeal. After reviewing the record, appellate counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which no arguable issues were raised. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119, 125 (Kelly).) Dubose was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. (See id. at p. 124.) We have independently examined the entire record on appeal and are satisfied appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.) By virtue of appellate counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our independent review of the record, Dubose has received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278–279; Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 109–110.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. RICHARDSON, J. 3