1

Filed 1/27/22 P. v. Hover 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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.

JAMES MICHAEL HOVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A163219

 (Sonoma County

 Super. Ct. No. SCR-745012-1)

James Michael Hover appeals from an aggregate prison term of six 

years imposed after he pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon (car) 

and leaving the scene of an accident and admitted an enhancement allegation 

for great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a); 

Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a).) His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief 

raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant 

to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issues and affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During the early morning of March 19, 2021, Corey Gamboa was 

straddling his motorcycle while talking with another man on a roadway 

under an overpass near a transient camp. Appellant, then 28 years old,

drove his silver Subaru toward them and struck Gamboa while the other man 

jumped out of the way. Appellant did not stop and crashed into a fence before 
2

fleeing the scene. Gamboa was hospitalized with injuries to his right leg. 

Appellant, who was homeless and abused drugs, had had prior disputes with 

Gamboa, but told the investigating officers that he had not tried to hit 

Gamboa with his car. 

Appellant was charged with attempted premediated murder, assault 

with a deadly weapon and leaving the scene of an accident, along with an 

enhancement for great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a), 245, 

subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a); Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a).) Before a 

preliminary hearing was held, appellant pled no contest to assault with a 

deadly weapon and leaving the scene of an accident and admitted the great 

bodily injury enhancement. It was an open plea with no agreement as to 

sentence, which carried a maximum term of seven years, eight months. The 

attempted murder count was dismissed as a condition of the plea. 

At sentencing, the People argued in favor of a seven-year prison term, 

the amount recommended by the probation department. Appellant urged the 

court to place him on probation, citing a head injury and drug addiction as 

mitigating factors. The court imposed the three-year middle term for assault 

with a deadly weapon, a three-year term for the great bodily injury 

enhancement, and a concurrent two-year middle term for leaving the scene of 

an accident, for an aggregate sentence of six years. It cited a number of 

factors in aggravation, including that the crime involved great violence, that 

appellant’s vehicle had been used as a weapon, that Gamboa was vulnerable

at the time of the collision, that appellant was an active participant, and that 

appellant had a criminal history involving driving (driving under the 

influence and driving on a suspended license). The court found that these 

factors warranted the middle term on the assault count when weighed 

against the factors in mitigation, which included the lack of a serious record 
3

or past offenses involving violence, as well as appellant’s plea at an early 

stage of the proceedings. 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal indicating that he was challenging

sentencing or other matters occurring after the plea. He did not obtain a 

certificate of probable cause.

II. DISCUSSION

As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we 

affirmatively note that appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders brief 

raising no issues, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a 

supplemental brief, and that appellant did not file such a brief. We have 

independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find none. 

The trial court acted within its discretion in denying probation. (People 

v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 402.) There is no indication the trial court 

failed to consider any relevant mitigating factors or abused its discretion in 

selecting the middle term of imprisonment, and indeed, the middle term is 

now the presumptive prison term. (People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 

1094, 1102; Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b)(1).) In any event, appellant did not 

object to the court’s recitation of aggravating and mitigating factors and has 

forfeited any challenge on this basis. (Sperling, at pp. 1100–1102.) 

Appellant was over 26 years of age when he committed the crime in 

this case and it does not appear from the record that he has experienced 

“psychological, physical or childhood trauma” or was the victim of intimate 

partner violence. (See § 1170, subd. (b)(6)(A)–(C).) He therefore is not 

entitled to resentencing due to the ameliorative effect of section 1170, 

subdivision (b)(6), effective January 1, 2022, which makes the lower term 

the presumptive term when these circumstances contribute to commission of 
4

the offense. (See People v. Flores (Jan. 13, 2022, A160578) ___ Cal.App.5th 

____ [2022 Cal.App. Lexis 26*, *12].)

We are satisfied that appellant’s appointed attorney has fully complied 

with the responsibilities of appellate counsel and that no arguable issues 

exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 283.) 

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
5

NEEDHAM, J.

We concur.

JACKSON, P.J.

BURNS, J.

People v. Hover / A163219