Filed 12/9/22 P. v. Lacroix CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DYLAN RIVERS LACROIX,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D080497

 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCE402172, 

SCE403469)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed. 

Dylan Rivers Lacroix, in pro. per.; and Pauline E. Villanueva, under 

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Dylan Rivers Lacroix pleaded guilty to crimes in two separate cases. 

He stipulated to a sentence of 12 years and eight months as part of the plea 
2

agreement. After sentencing, Lacroix filed a timely notice of appeal but did 

not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,1 § 1237.5). 

Specifically, Lacroix pleaded guilty as follows:

Case No. SCE402172

Evading a peace officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, 

subd. (a)).

Case No. SCE403469

Selling or furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (Health and Saf. 

Code, § 11353, subd. (c)) and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor 

(§ 261.5, subd. (c)). 

Lacroix also admitted to a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any 

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the 

record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Lacroix the opportunity 

to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a lengthy brief 

entitled, “Jurisdictional challenge to the constitutionality of unlawful 

statutes.” It appears to be the same document that was filed in the trial 

court by a nonlawyer on Lacroix’s behalf. We have reviewed the document. 

It does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In his change of plea, Lacroix admitted he furnished a controlled 

substance to a minor who was 17 years old. He had intercourse with a minor 

three years younger than him, and he evaded a police officer with reckless 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 

specified.
3

driving while pursued by an officer who was operating a vehicle with siren 

and lights operating. 

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks 

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and 

in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel 

has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating 

the potential merits of this appeal:

1. Whether the court erred in moving forward with sentencing after 

Lacroix expressed confusion and concern regarding the sentencing hearing.

2. Whether the trial court properly found Lacroix had the ability to pay 

the drug program fee under Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 and 

whether any such challenge was forfeited by trial counsel’s failure to object.

3. Whether the trial court’s imposition of “the normal fees and costs”

rather than identifying each fine, fee, and penalty imposed, was error that 

deprived Lacroix of proper notice and fairness.

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. 

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 

Competent counsel has represented Lacroix on this appeal.
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.