People v. Vanvoorhis CA4/1

Filed 3/20/26 P. v. Vanvoorhis CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D085331

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI19003316)

WARREN VANVOORHIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Shannon Faherty, Judge. Affirmed. Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2022, a jury convicted Warren Vanvoorhis of assault with intent to

commit rape (Pen. Code,1 § 220, subd. (a)(1)). It was also determined that Vanvoorhis had three serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and three strike priors (§ 667, subd. (b)–(i)).

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Vanvoorhis was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life consecutive to a 15-year term for serious felony priors. Vanvoorhis appealed and this court affirmed the convictions but remanded the matter for resentencing in light of the amendments to section 1385. (People v. Vanvoorhis (Jan. 10, 2024, D082210) [nonpub. opn.].) The court held a resentencing hearing. The court declined to strike the serious felony prior convictions and found that striking the priors would pose a grave risk of harm to the public. The court reimposed the original sentence. Vanvoorhis 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 Vanvoorhis the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. We discussed the facts of the offenses in our previous appeal. We will not repeat that discussion here. 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 erred in failing to dismiss the serious felony priors under section 1385. We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Vanvoorhis on this appeal. DISPOSITION