People v. Titman CA3

Filed 5/15/26 P. v. Titman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo)

THE PEOPLE, C103491 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR2021-2195) v. JOSEPH RENE TITMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joseph Rene Titman filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of this case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to Titman, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND In February 2021, the police searched Titman’s residence and found two auto-sear devices capable of altering a handgun to fire in fully automatic mode; a bottle of promethazine; two oxycodone pills; and rounds of live ammunition.

The People charged Titman with possession or transportation of a machinegun (Pen. Code, § 32625, subd. (a)), unlawful possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)), and possession of a controlled substance as a misdemeanor (Health & Saf.

Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The People alleged a prior strike conviction.

The trial court denied Titman’s motion to strike his prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and Penal Code section 1385.

Titman ultimately pled no contest to possession or transportation of a machinegun and admitted his prior strike conviction. The trial court dismissed the remaining counts with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. The court sentenced Titman to two years eight months’ imprisonment (the lower term, doubled due to the prior strike).

Titman timely appealed without requesting a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Titman was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and Titman has not filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to Titman. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ EARL, P. J.

We concur:

/s/ RENNER, J.

/s/ FEINBERG, J.