People v. Sowell CA3

Filed 3/27/26 P. v. Sowell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C103123

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR20232109)

v.

CLIFFORD EARL SOWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Clifford Earl Sowell filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of this case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2023, defendant willfully purchased and furnished marijuana to a minor under 14. Law enforcement searched defendant’s cellphone and other electronic devices and found multiple images depicting people under 18 engaging in sexual conduct.

1

The People charged defendant with lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), furnishing marijuana to a minor under 14 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361, subd. (a)), and possessing obscene matter depicting sexual conduct of persons under 18 (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)). Defendant ultimately pled no contest to furnishing marijuana to a minor and possessing obscene matter depicting sexual conduct of persons under 18. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years of probation and 364 days in the county jail. Defendant timely appealed without requesting a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant.