People v. Davis CA1/2

Filed 3/13/25 P. v. Davis CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171625 v. FELONY ANN DAVIS (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CF249201) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Felony Ann Davis appeals from a judgment entered after she pled no contest to driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), both felonies. Defendant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Davis was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief, but she did not do so. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and have independently reviewed the record. We find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm. On July 8, 2024, a criminal complaint was filed against Davis alleging the two felonies described above, alleged to have occurred on July 3. Davis appeared in custody and entered not guilty pleas. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for July 30 and later continued to August 6. At the preliminary

1

hearing readiness conference on August 5, the case was put over for change of plea the following day. On August 6, Davis pleaded no contest to the two felony counts. She completed a written felony “plea form with explanations and waivers of rights” that advised her of her constitutional rights and the rights she was waiving; the form was signed by her counsel and eventually by the court after the court reviewed the form and orally examined defendant. The terms of the plea agreement included that she would receive a 16-month prison term for each count (the mitigated term), to be served concurrently, and that the plea agreement in this case would trigger a violation of probation in a misdemeanor case for which she was currently on probation. Any time imposed in connection with the misdemeanor case would run concurrent with the new sentence, and the misdemeanor probation would be terminated. Davis’s counsel stated that he had met with his client, they reviewed the plea form together, he watched her initial each box on the multi-page plea form after he explained it to her, and he answered any questions she may have had. He told the court that he joined in the plea and her waiver of rights. The district attorney indicated that the victim (identified by name in count 1 of the complaint as the owner of the specific Jeep Cherokee vehicle that was taken) was present in the courtroom. The court invited the victim, Caralee Moreno, to speak. She stated she was a retired correctional officer and had dealt with people and “had a lot of things happen. But I really have to say that that kind of knocked me off my stand, having somebody be so blatant and so inconsiderate and think that they can just take your property and go running around and trash it and do whatever they were doing . . . .” She stated that “when you actually see somebody driving off with your car for