People v. Wilson CA5

Filed 12/23/24 P. v. Wilson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE , F087723 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F22901338) v.

BILLY GENE WILSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge. Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appellate counsel for defendant Billy Gene Wilson has filed an opening brief summarizing the pertinent facts and raising no issues but asking this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also includes a declaration from appellate counsel stating defendant was advised of his right to file a brief of his own with this court. By letter dated May 15, 2024, we also invited defendant to submit additional briefing. Defendant responded on May 29, 2024, asking about the status of other matters before this court.1 Defendant did not raise any new issues for the court to consider in this appeal at that time. However, on September 26, 2024, defendant requested the opportunity to present additional briefing, claiming he was having trouble communicating with appellate counsel. Defendant was granted additional time to submit briefing, which was received by this court on October 24, 2024. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following our Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of this case. (Kelly, at p. 110.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY On March 3, 2022, defendant was charged with attempted oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child under the age of 10 (Pen. Code,2 §§ 664/288.7, subd. (b), a felony; count 1), attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a), a felony; count 2), and

1 Defendant’s response to this court’s letter was to inquire about the status of his request for the appointment of counsel and a writ of mandate. We responded on May 29, 2024, that counsel had been appointed, and that the writ of mandate had been assigned the case No. F088051. Defendant’s writ of mandate was denied on June 18, 2024, due to the failure to provide an adequate record. (Wilson v. Superior Court (Jun. 18, 2024, F088051) [nonpub. order].) 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.