Court Opinion

ID: 9382079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 20:02:27.236799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:36.908646
License: Public Domain

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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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,
                                                                        A165928
 v.
 VERONIKA WELLS,                                                        (Lake County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No.
             Defendant and Appellant.
                                                                        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.

                                                               1
                                   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

                                        2
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.

                                        3
                                                   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.

                                       4