People v. James CA4/1

Filed 2/20/26 P. v. James CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D085865

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. BLF2400163)

DARREN L. JAMES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County,

Gregory Olson,* Judge. Affirmed. Darren L. James, in pro. per.; and Mytili G. Bala, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Darren L. James was charged with being in possession of a banned synthetic cannabinoid in a state prison. He entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to attempted possession of a synthetic cannabinoid

* Retired Judge of Riverside Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

(Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/4573.6, subd. (a)). James admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)). The parties stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea. James was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a term of three years in prison, consecutive to the term he was currently serving. James filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered James the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. James has responded by filing a supplemental brief challenging the legality of his conviction and claiming counsel was ineffective. The record in this case does not contain any challenge to the legality of the charges or the conviction. The supplemental brief presents material not on the record in this appeal. We cannot evaluate the allegations contained in the supplemental brief for the first time on appeal. Whether or not there is some basis for relief available to James it will have to be based on a complete record which is not now before us. James’s challenge will have to be presented in some other post-conviction proceeding. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, James stated he attempted to possess a banned synthetic cannabinoid and did the things that are specified in the charges and agreed he had a prior strike.