People v. Wills CA4/1

Filed 12/15/25 P. v. Wills CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085789

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE429847)

MARK DAVID WILLS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel G. Lamborn, Judge. Affirmed. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mark David Wills appeals the judgment entered following his guilty plea to petty theft with two or more prior theft convictions. His appointed counsel filed a brief in which he raised no claims of error and invited us to review the record independently for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).)

We have done so and found no error requiring reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND

In January 2025, the People charged Wills with robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and petty theft with two or more prior theft convictions. (§ 667, subd. (a).) Wills pleaded guilty to the petty theft count and admitted two prior convictions pursuant to section 666.1. The court accepted his plea. In March 2025, Wills agreed to be sentenced by a different judge, waiving his rights under People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 756. The court suspended imposition of his sentence and placed him on probation for two years, subject to certain terms and conditions. It ordered him to county jail for 365 days, awarded him a total of 92 days of credits and authorized him to be released to a residential treatment program after 90 days. The court also imposed various fines and fees. Wills filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel filed a brief in which he summarized the proceedings, raised no claims of error, and asked us to review the record independently for error. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 [appellate court must “conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues”].) We advised Wills he could file a supplemental brief, but he did not. DISCUSSION To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: