1

Filed 3/24/23 P. v. Wells CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or

or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VERONIKA WELLS

, Defendant and Appellant. A1 65928

( Lake County
Super. Ct. No.

CR960594 )

Appellant Veronika Wells appeals from a judgment following her no

contest plea to one count of failure to register a change of address pursuant to

Penal Code section 290 et seq. (Pen. Code, § 290.013, subd. (a)). 1 Appellant’s

counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent

review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues.

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

436.) Appellate counsel advised appellant of her right to file a supplementary

brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue s he believes deserves review.

( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief.

We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

1 All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.2 BACKGROUND

In February 2022, a felony complaint alleged appellant was a person

required to file a change of address pursuant to section 290 et seq. and failed

to do so in violation of section 290.013, subdivision (a). According to the

probation report, law enforcement went to appellant’s listed residence

multiple times and found it unoccupied; several neighbors reported they h ad

not seen appellant in weeks; and it was later determined appellant had

relocated to a different county.

In May 20 22 , appellant pled no contest

. The plea agreement provided

that appellant would be sentenced to not more than the low term of 16

months in prison and that “probation can be considered per applicable law.”

In July 20 22 , the court denied probation and sentenced appellant to 16

months in prison. The court found appellant did not have the ability to pay

fines or fees. Appellant was awarded no custody credits.

DISCUSSION

Because appellant pled no contest and did not file a motion to suppress

below, the scope of the reviewable issues is restricted to matters based on

constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legal ity of the

proceedings resulting in the plea, and post

- plea sentencing issues. ( People v.

DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895

– 896; People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th

759, 766.)

Appellant was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the

proceedi ngs. Appellant completed a plea form that described the

constitutional rights s he was waiving by entering a no contest plea, the trial

court confirmed appellant understood she was giving up those rights, and the

court found defendant freely and intelligen tly waived those rights. Defense

counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Appellant was properly3

advised of the consequences of h er plea by the written plea form and the trial

court

.
The sentence was consistent with the plea agreement and t he denial of

probation was not an abuse of discretion

. The award of no custody credits

was proper as a ppellant was not in custody during the proceedings.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.4 SIMONS, Acting P. J.

We concur.

BURNS, J.

LANGHORNE, J. *

(A165928)

* Judge of the Napa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.