People v. Stokes CA4/3

Opinion

Filed 9/22/26 P. v. Stokes CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G065830 v. (Super. Ct. No. 23WF2226)

KEVIN JOSEPH STOKES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Elizabeth G. Macias, Judge. Affirmed. Melanie L. Skehar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant Kevin Joseph Stokes appeals a judgment that was entered following his convictions for aggravated assault and other crimes. His appointed attorney filed a brief under the procedures described in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), declaring she was unable to find any issues to raise on Stokes’s behalf. Having independently reviewed the record, we also detect no arguable issues. We therefore affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On the afternoon of July 21, 2023, Vinh H. and Marie S. were giving away phones on a street corner in Westminster as part of a promotion when they heard a man, later identified as Stokes, yelling obscenities from across the street. Stokes crossed the street and approached the table at which Vinh and Marie were sitting. He then pulled out a meat cleaver and angrily slashed it down on the table, narrowly missing Vinh’s arm. Fearing for his safety, Vinh stood up and stepped behind his chair for protection. Stokes walked toward Vinh and swung the cleaver in his direction several more times before eventually walking away. After a bystander called the police, officers arrived on the scene and spotted Stokes on the roof of a building in the area. When Stokes came down from the roof, he was agitated and ignored the officers’ requests to stop walking away from them. The officers were nevertheless able to catch and arrest him; they found his meat cleaver in some nearby bushes. Stokes was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing a deadly weapon, and resisting arrest. (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 417, subd. (a)(1), 148, subd. (a)(1).) Before trial, the court granted his request for mental health diversion. (Id., § 1001.36) But a few weeks later, Stokes informed the court he was no longer interested in participating in the 2 diversion program, so, with Stokes’s consent, his case resumed in criminal court. Stokes ended up pleading guilty to the resisting charge, and a jury convicted him of the other two charges. At sentencing, the trial court found three aggravating factor allegations true beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) Stokes’s crimes involved a threat of great bodily harm; (2) Stokes’s conduct posed a serious danger to public safety; and (3) Stokes’s prior convictions are numerous and of increasing seriousness. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1), (b)(1) & (b)(2).) The trial court then sentenced Stokes to the upper term of four years on the assault count and concurrent one-year terms on the other two counts. The court also awarded Stokes 1,486 days of presentence custody credit and imposed but stayed various fines and fees. On appeal, Stokes’s appointed attorney filed a brief raising no issues but requesting that we independently review the record pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. In her brief, appointed counsel stated she has tried to notify Stokes about this appeal and advise him of his right to file a supplemental brief or written argument on his own behalf. However, she has been unable to contact Stokes because the phone number he provided is incorrect and he did not provide an address. In her accompanying declaration, appointed counsel reiterated this point, saying she has been unable to contact Stokes or obtain a mailing address to provide him with a copy of her brief. Counsel declared she has also communicated with Stokes’s trial attorney, but he too has been unable to contact Stokes. DISCUSSION Consistent with our duties under Anders and Wende, we have reviewed the entire record on appeal. We are satisfied appointed counsel 3 complied with her responsibilities and exercised reasonable due diligence in attempting to contact Stokes. And we have found no arguable issues to raise on Stokes’s behalf. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

GOODING, J.

WE CONCUR:

DELANEY, ACTING P. J.

SERVINO, J.