People v. Wilson CA1/5

Filed 9/13/24 P. v. Wilson CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A168533 v. DARRYEAL WOODROW WILSON, (Napa County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 23CR000943)

Darryeal Woodrow Wilson pleaded no contest to failure to provide information as a transient sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (d))1 with a prior felony under the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and was sentenced accordingly. He claims the trial court erred by failing to dismiss his prior strike, under section 1385, subdivision (c), and to determine his ability to pay before imposing certain fees and fines. These claims are forfeited, and they fail all the same. Wilson’s related claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance are unavailing. We affirm the judgment.

1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the Penal

Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2003, a jury convicted Wilson of four counts of committing lewd acts with his six-year-old niece (§ 288, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to 14 years in prison. Following several appeals, we affirmed the judgment. Later, Wilson was twice convicted of failure to register as a sex offender (§§ 290.018, subd. (b), 290.011, subd. (a)); we affirmed. In 2022, Wilson was unhoused, or transient. (§ 290.011, subd. (g).) He failed to provide current information about where he slept and spent his time, as transient sex offenders must do. (§ 290.011, subd. (d).) The People charged Wilson with felony failure to provide information (ibid.) and alleged his 2003 conviction was a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)). Per an agreement with the People, Wilson pleaded no contest to the failure to provide information charge and admitted the strike allegation. He asked the trial court to dismiss the prior strike pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, which the court declined to do. The trial court sentenced Wilson to two years and eight months in prison and imposed fines and fees totaling $370. DISCUSSION I. Section 1385, Subdivision (c). Wilson claims the trial court erroneously failed to consider whether to dismiss his strike per section 1385, subdivision (c), which requires a court to dismiss “an enhancement” if it furthers justice, “afford[ing] great weight” to specified mitigating circumstances. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(1), (2).) Wilson forfeited this argument by failing to seek dismissal under section 1385, subdivision (c) during sentencing. (See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 [complaints about trial court’s exercise of sentencing discretion cannot be raised for the first time on appeal].) Wilson argues the