People v. Wilson CA1/3

Filed 6/23/22 P. v. Wilson CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163946 v. DARRYEAL WOODROW WILSON, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 21CR000159) Defendant and Appellant.

Darryeal Wilson appeals from a judgment following his conviction for violating Penal Code section 290.011 by failing to register as a transient sex offender. Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to this offense, and also admitted a prior strike conviction for violating section 288, subdivision (a).1 He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 32 months in prison and ordered to pay $370 in fines and fees. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief that raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having conducted that review, we affirm the judgment.

Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 1

indicated. Because appellant’s conviction is based on a plea, the factual background summarized in this opinion is drawn from the preliminary hearing evidence.

1

SUMMARY OF RECORD ON APPEAL In February 2018, Napa Police Detective Garrett Wade registered appellant as a sex offender in Napa County. During his initial interview, appellant reported that he was transient, and that he was living in his car at a Walmart parking lot. Because appellant was a transient, Detective Wade was required to reregister appellant as a sex offender every 30 days. (See § 290.011, subd. (b).) Between February 2018 and January 2021, appellant complied with his registration obligations, and reported that he continued to live as a transient. On January 19, 2021, appellant had an appointment to update his registration. At the time, Detective Wade was registering people over the phone because of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the morning of January 19, a police records specialist called appellant in advance of his appointment with Wade. Appellant reported that his brother had died and he was on a train to Chicago. When Wade called appellant later that day, appellant did not answer. Wade left a message reminding appellant that he needed to update his registration and asking him to call back. Appellant did not return Wade’s call. Wade left another message the next day, but appellant did not call Wade to update his registration. Detective Wade obtained a “cell phone ping warrant,” which enabled him to locate appellant’s phone. Retrieved data showed that appellant was in Bullhead, Arizona on January 26, 2021, and that he was in Deming, New Mexico on February 15. On February 15, Wade learned that appellant had been arrested in Deming. A Deming police officer told Wade that officers had also located a car that was registered in California and contained a release of liability made out to appellant. The car was not the same vehicle that appellant had reported living in when he stayed at the Napa Walmart.