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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered 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.

 A165928

 (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 she 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 had 

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

relocated to a different county. 

In May 2022, 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 2022, 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 legality 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 

proceedings. Appellant completed a plea form that described the 

constitutional rights she 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 intelligently waived those rights. Defense 

counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Appellant was properly 
3

advised of the consequences of her plea by the written plea form and the trial 

court. 

The sentence was consistent with the plea agreement and the denial of 

probation was not an abuse of discretion. The award of no custody credits 

was proper as appellant 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.