1

Filed 6/23/ 22 P. v. Wilson CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. DARRYEAL WOODROW WILSON, Defendant and Appellant. A163946

( Napa County Super. Ct. No. 21CR000159 )

Darryeal Wilson appeals from a judgment following his conviction for violating Penal Code section 290.011 by failing to register as a transient sex
offender

. Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to this offense , and also admitted a prior strike conviction for violating section 288, subdivision (a). 1
He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 32 months in prison and ordered to pay $370 in fines and fees. Appellan t’s counsel has filed a brief that raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). Having conducted that review, we affirm the judgment.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. Because appellant’s conviction is based on a plea, the factual background summarized in this opinion is drawn from the preliminary hearing evidence.2 SUMMARY OF RECORD ON APPEAL In February 2018, Napa Police Detective Garrett Wade registered

a ppellant as a sex offender in Napa County. During his initial interview,

a ppellant reported that he was transient, and that he was living in his car at a Walmart parking lot. Beca use appellant was a transient, Detective Wade was required to reregister appellant as a sex offender every 30 days. (See § 290. 0 11, subd. (b).) Between February 2018 and January 2021, a ppellant complied with his registration obligations , and reported that he continued to
live as a transient

. On January 19, 2021, a ppellant had an appointment to update his registration. At the time , Detective Wade was registering people over the phone because of the COVID

- 19 pandemic. On the morning of Janu ary 19, a police records specialist called a ppellant in advance of his appointment with
Wade. Appellant reported that his brother had died and he was on a train to Chicago. When Wade called a ppellant later that day, a ppellant did not

answer

. Wade left a message reminding a ppellant that he needed to update his registration and asking him to call back. Appellant did not return Wade’s call. Wade left another message the next day, but a ppellant did not call
Wade to update his registration

. Detective Wade obtained a “cell phone ping warrant,” which enabled
him to locate a ppellant’s phone. R etrieved data showed that a ppellant was in Bullhead, Arizona on January 26, 2021, and that he was in Deming, New Mexico on February 15. On February 15, Wade learned th at a ppellant had been arrested in Deming. A Deming police officer told Wade that officers had
also located a car that was registered in California and contained a r elease of liability made out to a ppellant . The car was not the same vehicle that

a ppellant had reported living in when he stayed at the Napa Walmart.3

On October 1, 2021, the District Attorney filed an amended information charging appellant with two felonies: failing to register and reregister as a person living as a transient who is required to register as a sex offender ( § 290. 0 11, subd. (a) ) ; and failing to provide notice to a registering law enforcement agency within five days of moving out of the state ( § 290. 0 11, subd. (f)). The first count was accompanied by an allegation that appellant has two or more prior violations of the transient sex offender registration requirement. The information also contained a special allegation that appellant has a prior strike conviction for violating section 288 . (§ 667,
suds. (b)

– (i).) On October 1, 2021, appellant entered a plea of no contest to the first
count in the amended information and admitted a prior strike conviction. 2 Appellant also admitted his prior violations of the registration statute. The court found that appellant’s plea was “freely and voluntarily entered,” there was a factual basis for the plea, and appellant made an “intelligent waiver” of his rights. The record contains a copy of the fully executed plea form and waiver of appellant’s trial rights. The second cou nt in the amended
information was dismissed. Appellant was sentenced on November 5, 2021. The record reflects that the court received and considered the probation report before denying appellant probation and sentencing him to a total term of 32 months in prison. The court imposed a low term of 1 6 months for the registration

2 A few days before appellant entered his plea, he expressed displeasure with his court

- appointed counsel and a desire to potentially represent himself. These matters were discussed at a hearing conducted pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. Following that hearing, appe llant and his counsel conferred and reached an understanding about how to proceed.4

violation, which was doubled because of appellant’s prior strike conviction. Appellant was given credit of 264 days for time served in custody plus 264 days of conduct credit. Te rms and conditions of sentencing included submitting DNA samples (§ 296), a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and a $70

asse ss ment fee ( Gov. Code , § 70373 ).
DISCUSSION
The Wende brief filed by appellant’s counsel does not draw our attention to any issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744. Appellant was appraised of his right to file a supplemental brief and to request to have his counsel relieved, but he did ne ither. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.) Following Wende guidelines, we have conducted an independent review
of the record summarized above and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal. “Issues cognizable on an ap peal following a guilty plea are limited to issues based on ‘ reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings ’ resulting in the plea. ” ( People v. De Vaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895 .) “The same rule

app lies after a defendant enters a plea of ‘nolo contendere’ (‘no contest’). [Citation.] ‘ “In short, a defendant ‘ cannot admit the sufficiency of the evidence by pleading guilty [or nolo contendere] and then question the evidence by an appeal . . . .’ ” ’ ” ( In re Troy Z . (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170, 1181.) In the present case, appellant did not seek or obtain a certificate of probable cause pursuant to section 1237.5. Our independent review discloses no issue requiring further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed

.5 TUCHER, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

FUJISAKI, J. PETROU , J.

People v. Wilson (A16 3946 )