People v. Ware CA3

Opinion

Filed 9/3/26 P. v. Ware CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin)

THE PEOPLE, C104364 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. v. STKCRFE20230010074)

JOSHUA MCKINZIE WARE, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua McKinzie Ware filed an opening brief that set forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to him, we will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An information charged Ware with commission of a sex crime with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)—count 1)1; lewd acts upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)—count 2); possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a)— count 3); and indecent exposure (§ 314.1—count 4). Numerous aggravating sentencing factors were also alleged.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 In February 2025, Ware pled guilty to counts 2 and 3 for a stipulated aggregate sentence of three years, and in exchange, counts 1 and 4 were dismissed in the interests of justice. The factual basis for Ware’s plea was that he recorded himself removing a nine- year-old child’s underwear, “placed his hand in between her buttocks cheeks and pressed his hand in the portion of her buttocks cheeks … for his own sexual gratification.” Sentencing was put over for the preparation of a presentence report including a Static 99 assessment. In April 2025, the trial court sentenced Ware to the agreed upon aggregate term of three years, consisting of the low term of three years on count 2 and the low term of 16 months on count 3, to run concurrently. The court awarded 553 days of custody credit and ordered Ware to pay statutory minimum fines and fees. Following the pronouncement of sentence, the trial court granted Ware’s motion to represent himself. The court then stayed the sentence to give Ware an opportunity to file a motion to set aside his plea. In July 2025, the trial court lifted the stay of Ware’s sentence because he had not filed a motion to set aside his plea. The court updated Ware’s custody credits to account for the time between the original sentencing hearing and the July 2025 hearing, awarding him a total of 670 days of custody credit. Ware timely appealed but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel for Ware filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requested this court review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Ware 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 Ware has not filed a supplemental brief.

2 Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to him. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

/s/ MAURO, Acting P. J.

/s/ KRAUSE, J.