People v. Wilson CA3

Filed 8/11/22 P. v. Wilson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C095785

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21CF03885)

NATHAN DUANE WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Nathan Duane Wilson asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I Defendant and M.P. were in a dating relationship for approximately 12 years and had two children together. They got into an argument during which defendant threw M.P. around, dragged her by her hair, and punched her in the face. One of the children

1

witnessed the assault. That child reported defendant had also hit him and grabbed him by the neck during the assault on M.P. Both M.P. and the child had injuries. The trial court denied defendant’s application for mental health diversion (Pen. Code, § 1001.36),1 and defendant pleaded no contest to inflicting corporal injury on the mother of his children (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor cruelty to a child, endangering the child’s health (§ 273a, subd. (b)). On the People’s motion, the trial court dismissed the remaining charges with a Harvey2 waiver. At the January 2022 sentencing, the trial court read and considered the probation report and noted the report included “a criminal history which I understand is taken directly from the [CLETS] printout and DMV printout and those are reliable sources for the criminal record and I do find that those are reliable.” The trial court indicated its intended sentence was the upper term, and then heard from the parties. Defense counsel argued for either the lower or middle term based on a variety of factors, including defendant’s mental health problems and childhood trauma. Defense counsel did not object to reliance on the probation report. The People argued for the upper term based on, among other things, defendant’s criminal record. The trial court found the following factors in aggravation: defendant’s prior criminal history; his unsuccessful prior performance on parole and probation; his numerous prior convictions of increasing seriousness; and his prior prison term. The trial court also considered defendant’s history of childhood trauma as argued by defense counsel as a mitigating factor under 1170, subdivision (b)(6), but found the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four