1

Filed 12/16/21 P. v. Hansen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DWAYNE LOREN HANSEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C093948

(Super. Ct. No. 20CF02707)

Appointed counsel for defendant Dwayne Loren Hansen filed an opening brief 

that sets forth the facts of the 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

(Wende).) After examining the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm the judgment.
2

BACKGROUND

Our recitation of the facts is derived from the probation report and Butte County 

Sheriff’s Office report No. 20-03450, to which defendant stipulated to as the factual basis 

for his plea.

On May 29, 2020, a Butte County sheriff’s deputy contacted defendant and his 

wife near their motorhome at a boat launch in Oroville; the motorhome had an expired 

registration. Defendant admitted they possessed marijuana and consented to the deputy 

entering the motorhome to retrieve the marijuana. After marijuana and drug 

paraphernalia were located, defendant consented to a search of the motorhome and 

deputies located nunchakus, children’s underwear, and a second methamphetamine pipe. 

Given defendant’s status as a sex offender who was required to register and the presence 

of children’s underwear in the motorhome that defendant admitted using to masturbate, a 

deputy asked defendant for consent to search his electronic devices. Defendant admitted 

he possessed child pornography on a cellphone located in the bedroom of the motorhome. 

Defendant then fled on foot after telling the deputies they needed a warrant; he was 

subsequently detained. After obtaining a search warrant, a forensic analysis of 

defendant’s electronic devices located over 1,000 images and 62 videos of child 

pornography.

In June 2020, defendant was charged with possession of sadomasochistic child or 

youth pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (c)(2); count 1),1 possession of over 600 

images of child or youth pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (c)(1); count 2), possession of 

child or youth pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a); count 3), possession of a nunchaku 

(§ 22010; count 4), possession of methamphetamine with a prior conviction that requires 

1

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

section 290 registration (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 5), and resisting, 

delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 6).

In December 2020, defendant agreed to plead guilty to count 2, possessing over 

600 images of child pornography, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts with 

a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. The plea agreement left the 

matter of probation and sentencing to the trial court’s discretion. Defendant stipulated to 

a factual basis for his plea, and further stipulated that the trial court could consider facts 

from probation reports, police reports, or other sources as deemed necessary to establish 

the factual basis.

In April 2021, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the 

upper term of five years. The court awarded defendant 328 days of actual credit and 328 

days of conduct credit for total presentence credits of 656 days and imposed a $300 

restitution fine (§ 1202.4); a $300 post release community supervision revocation 

restitution fine, stayed unless supervision was revoked (§ 1202.45); a $40 court 

operations assessment (§ 1465.8); and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, 

§ 70373).

That same day, defendant filed a notice of appeal, claiming the appeal was based 

on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of 

the plea. A week later, on April 28, 2020, defendant filed a second notice of appeal that 

requested a certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied his certificate request. 

On June 18, 2021, defendant filed a third notice of appeal with a request for a certificate 

of probable cause; the trial court granted this request. The case was fully briefed on 

September 24, 2021 and assigned to this panel on October 29, 2021.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 
4

436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of 

the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no 

communication from defendant.

Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /s/

Duarte, J.

We concur:

 /s/

Blease, Acting P. J.

 /s/

Krause, J.