People v. Ayala CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 7/23/26 P. v. Ayala 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087605 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FERI2504036) v.

ANGEL DE JESUS AYALA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Melissa Hale, Judge. Affirmed. Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Angel De Jesus Ayala was charged in three different cases with various theft-related offenses as well as felony vandalism (Pen. Code § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Ayala pleaded guilty to all of the charges in each of the three cases then pending trial. The court gave an indication that the sentence would not exceed 16 months in prison. Prior to sentencing, Ayala argued his sentence should be ordered to be served in local custody instead of state prison. The court rejected Ayala’s contention and imposed a total sentence of 16 months to be served in prison. Ayala filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) 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 advised Ayala of his right to file his own brief in this appeal. Ayala has not responded to our notice. 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 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the trial court erred in rejecting Ayala’s argument that he should have been ordered to serve his sentence in local custody instead of prison. We have independently 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 Ayala in this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3