People v. Wills CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE429847
- Trial judge
- Daniel G. Lamborn
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), O'Rourke, Laurence D. Rubin
Analysis
The trial court accepted Wills's guilty plea to petty theft with prior convictions and imposed probation conditions, including gang-related restrictions, electronic device searches, and alcohol-venue avoidance. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under Wende/Anders, finding no error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of gang-related probation conditions“The court specifically found “a nexus to justify . . . the gang conditions.”” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The court found no error requiring reversal or modification of the judgment. |
Imposition of probation condition requiring submission to search of computers and recordable media“It was also a reasonable means to ensure Wills did not endeavor to contact his victim, in violation of the court’s no-contact order.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The court found no error requiring reversal or modification of the judgment. |
Imposition of probation condition requiring avoidance of places where alcohol is the main item for sale“As such, it was reasonable for the court to impose the probation condition requiring him to avoid places where alcohol is the main item for sale.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The court found no error requiring reversal or modification of the judgment. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate court must conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record when counsel files a no-merit brief.
- relied: People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375 — Probation conditions must serve a purpose specified in Penal Code section 1203.1 and are invalid only if they fail all three prongs of the test.
- relied: People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 — The sentencing court violates the abuse of discretion standard when its determination is arbitrary or capricious or exceeds the bounds of reason.
- relied: People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 — Defendant may waive rights to be sentenced by the judge who accepted the plea.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the abuse of discretion standard and the Olguin test to the specific probation conditions. It provides sufficient factual basis from the record (gang affiliation, substance abuse) to support the trial court's findings of nexus and reasonableness.
The San Diego Superior Court accepted Wills's guilty plea to petty theft with two or more prior theft convictions, suspended imposition of sentence, placed him on two years' probation with 365 days in county jail (release to residential treatment after 90 days), and imposed gang-related, electronic-device search, and alcohol-establishment probation conditions over his objection. On a Wende/Anders appeal in which counsel raised no issues, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no abuse of discretion in the challenged probation conditions, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition, over objection, of gang-related probation conditions“The court specifically found “a nexus to justify . . . the gang conditions.”” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Under Olguin (restating Lent), a condition is invalid only if all three prongs are met; the record showed Wills's admitted gang affiliation, moniker, and juvenile gang history, which supports a finding that the conditions are reasonably related to preventing future criminality even if unrelated to the theft offense. The court's reliance on Olguin and the probation officer's stated monitoring rationale is adequate. |
Imposition, over objection, of probation condition requiring submission to search of computers and recordable media“It was also a reasonable means to ensure Wills did not endeavor to contact his victim, in violation of the court’s no-contact order.” | abuse of discretion | correct | unsure The court applied Olguin's third prong but did not address In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, which holds that an electronics search condition fails Lent when the burden on privacy is substantially disproportionate to the legitimate interests served and the record shows no connection between electronic devices and the offense or future criminality. The opinion identifies no evidence that Wills used electronic devices in connection with the theft, gang activity, or contacting the victim, so the result may be defensible but the proportionality analysis required by binding authority is missing. |
Imposition, over objection, of probation condition barring presence in places where alcohol is the main item for sale“As such, it was reasonable for the court to impose the probation condition requiring him to avoid places where alcohol is the main item for sale.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Defense counsel conceded a substance abuse disorder was the underlying struggle and the court ordered release to residential treatment; a condition limiting presence at alcohol-focused establishments is reasonably related to rehabilitation and preventing future criminality under section 1203.1 and Olguin. |
Acceptance of guilty plea, grant of probation, and judgment generally (Wende/Anders independent review)“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel's no-issue brief, notice to the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief, and independent record review. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable issue beyond the probation conditions discussed; the opinion's citation to section 667, subdivision (a) for the petty theft count appears to be a drafting slip (the admitted priors were under section 666.1) but does not affect the judgment. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no specific issues, the appellate court must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may so advise the court, referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then reviews the record.
- relied: People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375 — Probation conditions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; a condition is invalid only if it has no relationship to the crime, relates to non-criminal conduct, and is not reasonably related to future criminality, with all three prongs required.
- relied: People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 — A sentencing court abuses its discretion when its determination is arbitrary, capricious, or exceeds the bounds of reason considering all circumstances.
- relied: People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 — A defendant who enters a plea bargain before a judge has a right to be sentenced by that judge, a right that may be waived.
- missed: In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 — An electronics search condition is unreasonable under Lent's third prong where the burden on the probationer's privacy is substantially disproportionate to the countervailing interests in supervision and the record shows no connection between electronic device use and the offense or likely future criminality.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the Olguin/Lent framework and abuse-of-discretion standard to the gang and alcohol conditions, and the record facts it cites support those conditions. It did not, however, address In re Ricardo P., the controlling Supreme Court authority on electronics search conditions, which requires a proportionality analysis the opinion omits for a condition Wills objected to below.
Opinion
Filed 12/15/25 P. v. Wills 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, D085789
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE429847)
MARK DAVID WILLS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel G. Lamborn, Judge. Affirmed. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Mark David Wills appeals the judgment entered following his guilty plea to petty theft with two or more prior theft convictions. His appointed counsel filed a brief in which he raised no claims of error and invited us to review the record independently for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).) We have done so and found no error requiring reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND In January 2025, the People charged Wills with robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and petty theft with two or more prior theft convictions. (§ 667, subd. (a).) Wills pleaded guilty to the petty theft count and admitted two prior convictions pursuant to section 666.1. The court accepted his plea. In March 2025, Wills agreed to be sentenced by a different judge, waiving his rights under People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 756. The court suspended imposition of his sentence and placed him on probation for two years, subject to certain terms and conditions. It ordered him to county jail for 365 days, awarded him a total of 92 days of credits and authorized him to be released to a residential treatment program after 90 days. The court also imposed various fines and fees. Wills filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel filed a brief in which he summarized the proceedings, raised no claims of error, and asked us to review the record independently for error. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 [appellate court must “conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues”].) We advised Wills he could file a supplemental brief, but he did not. DISCUSSION To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 1. Whether the trial court erred, over Wills’s objection, in imposing several gang-related probation conditions; 2. Whether the trial court erred, over Wills’s objection, in imposing a probation condition requiring him to submit to search of his computers and recordable media; and 3. Whether the trial court erred, over Wills’s objection, in imposing a probation condition requiring him not to be in places where alcohol is the main item for sale. “We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379 (Olguin).) “As with any exercise of discretion, the sentencing court violates this standard when its determination is arbitrary or capricious or exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.” (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121 [cleaned up].) In making a probation determination, the court may, in the interests of justice, impose reasonable conditions, such “that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer.” (§ 1203.1, subd. (j).) The trial court’s discretion in ordering probation conditions is broad but “must serve a purpose specified in Penal Code section 1203.1.” (Olguin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 379). As explained in Olguin, a condition of probation will not be held invalid unless (1) it has no relationship to the crime of conviction, (2) it relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) it requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. (Ibid.) “[A]ll three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. . . . As such, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the 3 crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long as the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.” (Id. at pp. 379–380 (citations omitted).) Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing these probation conditions. Wills previously admitted to having a gang affiliation. Because he has a “moniker” and “was affiliated with the gang in his juvenile record,” the probation officer requested the gang conditions remain so Wills could “be monitored.” As the probation officer pointed out, “If he doesn’t have any gang affiliation, then there would be no issues with those conditions.” The court specifically found “a nexus to justify . . . the gang conditions.” The probation department also requested the probation condition requiring Wills to submit to search of his electronic devices “to ensure [Wills] doesn’t have any gang affiliation.” It was also a reasonable means to ensure Wills did not endeavor to contact his victim, in violation of the court’s no- contact order. Finally, the court authorized Wills to be released to a residential treatment program because, as Wills’s counsel explained, “the underlying struggle in his life” is “a substance abuse disorder.” As such, it was reasonable for the court to impose the probation condition requiring him to avoid places where alcohol is the main item for sale. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Wills on this appeal.
4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
DO, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Olguin S149303 · 2008-12-29
- People v. Carbajal S036146 · 1995-08-14
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
- People v. Arbuckle Crim. 20002 · 1978-12-12