People v. Holmes CA1/4

Filed 12/8/25 P. v. Holmes CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A173227 v. (Mendocino County DANIEL RAY HOLMES, SR., Super. Ct. No. 22CR02463, Defendant and Appellant. 24CR06320)

Daniel Ray Holmes, Sr. appeals from a judgment rendered upon a negotiated disposition of two cases in Mendocino County Superior Court. Holmes’s appointed appellate counsel has submitted a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) requesting that we independently review the record. Counsel has advised Holmes of his right to submit a supplemental brief, and Holmes has not done so. Our independent review of the record has disclosed no appellate issues that warrant further briefing. I. BACKGROUND In September 2022, the Mendocino County District Attorney’s office filed a complaint in case number 22CR02463 charging Holmes with two counts: felony possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf.

1

Code, § 11351) and misdemeanor possession of cannabis or concentrated cannabis for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, subd. (b)). At the preliminary hearing that followed, evidence was presented that on September 2, 2022, a Mendocino County Sheriff’s Deputy conducted an authorized probation search of Holmes at an area hotel room where Holmes appeared to be residing. The deputy testified that he found what was later determined to be 51 grams of fentanyl in powder form in Holmes’s pants pocket, which, the deputy testified, based on his training and experience, constituted 25,500 doses of the drug. The deputy also found that Holmes possessed cash of about $4,000, later determined to be $4,411. The deputy also testified that, based on his training and experience, Holmes’s possession of the fentanyl was consistent with a person being in possession of it for purposes of sales. No evidence was presented regarding any cannabis. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered that Holmes would answer to the first count of the complaint, and the court discharged him as to the second count. In May 2023, the District Attorney’s office filed an information charging Holmes with one count of felony possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). Subsequently, as part of a negotiated disposition of his case, Holmes entered a plea of no contest to that count and an added misdemeanor count for possession of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11377). He stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript as a factual basis for his pleas. The court found him guilty of the charges and scheduled a sentencing hearing. Holmes, who was not being held in custody, was ordered to appear. In December 2024, the District Attorney’s office filed a felony complaint in case number 24CR06320 charging Holmes with felony failure to appear in