People v. Nelson CA4/1

Filed 3/2/26 P. v. Nelson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D085826

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN409177)

CHARLES L. NELSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael D. Washington, Judge. Affirmed. Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In September 2021, Charles L. Nelson pleaded guilty to attempted murder with a knife and admitted he inflicted great bodily injury (Pen.

Code,1 §§ 664/187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1), & 12022.7, subd. (e)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In July 2024, Nelson filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court found Nelson had made a prima facie showing eligibility for relief under the statute and issued an order to show cause. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing. The court found the evidence showed Nelson was the actual perpetrator of the offenses and was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition. Nelson filed a timely notice of appeal. 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 Nelson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court’s denial of the petition was supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Nelson on this appeal.