People v. Cole CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 9/28/26 P. v. Cole CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E087785 v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI25000925)

JAMAR COLE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Richard V. Peel, Judge. Affirmed.

Dan E. Chambers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Jamar Cole appeals the trial court’s judgment, after pleading no contest to carjacking. (Pen. Code1, § 215, subd. (a).) We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND2

Gustavo L. and George E. were at a gas station, and Gustavo L. went inside the station while George E. remained in the backseat of the car. When Gustavo L. returned, he saw defendant in the front seat of the car. He attempted to get defendant out of the car, but defendant drove off with George E. still in the backseat. The California Highway Patrol eventually pulled the car over and detained defendant.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2025, a first amended complaint was filed, alleging kidnapping for carjacking (§ 209.5, subd. (a), count 1), carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a), count 2), and kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a), count 3). The complaint also alleged several factors in aggravation pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (b)(2).

On April 2, 2025, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competence pursuant to section 1368, and the court ordered the proceedings to be stayed in order for him to be evaluated. Two doctors were appointed to prepare reports 1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

2 This brief summary of the facts is taken from the police report.

2 concerning defendant’s competency, and they reached different opinions. The court found defendant competent and reinstated criminal proceedings on July 7, 2025.

On December 19, 2025, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled no contest to carjacking, in exchange for a three-year state prison sentence and the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. The court sentenced him in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.

On January 30, 2026, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and a request for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause. The trial court granted the request for a certificate of probable cause on February 6, 2026.

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and one potential arguable issue: whether the trial court erred in failing to obtain a personal waiver from defendant regarding his right to a jury trial on the issue of his competency. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J. We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

MENETREZ J.