People v. Wilson CA4/2

Filed 4/15/26 P. v. Wilson CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E086247 v. (Super.Ct.No. FERI2501473) JAMES THOMAS WILSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jennifer R. Gerard, Judge. Affirmed.

Jo Pastore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this Anders/Wende1 matter, defendant and appellant James Thomas Wilson appeals from his conviction under a plea agreement to two of three pending charges in an amended complaint. Specifically, defendant pled guilty to committing domestic violence in which he inflicted bodily injury resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code,2 § 273.5, subd. (f)(1)) and to assault with a deadly weapon (id., § 245, subd. (a)(1)) when he attempted to strike the victim with his car. In pleading guilty, defendant admitted the factual basis for the plea and he acknowledged, among other consequences of the plea, that he was prohibited from possessing firearms. Also pursuant to the plea: (1) defendant admitted a prior strike (§ 422 [criminal threats] under the “Three Strikes” law; (2) the balance of the amended complaint was dismissed, including multiple alleged aggravating factors and an unlawful ammunition possession charge (§ 30305); and (3) the trial court imposed an aggregate 6-year prison term. In conjunction with entering the judgment, the trial court issued a criminal protective order prohibiting defendant from possessing firearms for 15 years.

On appeal, this court appointed appellate counsel. Counsel’s review of the record and legal research uncovered no arguable issues to raise on appeal, including after consultation with Appellate Defenders, Inc. In reaching that conclusion, counsel noted for our potential reconsideration in our independent review several issues she concluded

1 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

lacked arguable merit. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [“an arguable issue” requires “a reasonable potential for success” on appeal].) Those issues are: (1) whether defendant was properly advised of plea consequences, without indicating any erroneous advisement; (2) whether the court erred in prohibiting firearm possession for 15 years; and (3) whether defendant was adequately arraigned on the amended complaint?

Having independently reviewed the record for potential error, we are satisfied defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORT

MILLER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

CODRINGTON J.