Filed 10/16/26 P. v. Anderson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
E087093
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. RIF2204714)
v.
OPINION
LEWIS ANDERSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Patricia Murphy, Judge.
Affirmed.
Lewis Anderson in pro.per.; and Law Office of Patrick Dudley and Patrick
Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In 2023 Lewis Anderson was convicted of several felonies and admitted to
multiple aggravating factors. On appeal, we reversed, finding his admission to six of the
seven aggravating factors was not knowing and intelligent. On remand, the trial court
resentenced Anderson using only the remaining aggravating factor. Anderson appealed
again. His attorney filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 asking us to perform an independent
review of the record. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2023 a jury convicted Anderson of assault with a deadly weapon and
misdemeanor battery of an intimate partner.{CT 11-12, 16} The trial court sentenced
him to the upper term of four years for the assault, doubled due to a prior strike
conviction, with an additional five-year enhancement for a serious felony prior, and a
consecutive sentence of one year for the battery, for a total aggregate term of
14 years.{RT 12-13} In 2025 we vacated his sentence and remanded, holding that his
admission to six of seven aggravating factors was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent.
(See People v. Anderson (Feb. 19, 2025, E081601) [nonpub. opn.] (Anderson).) Our
decision did not affect the remaining admission—admitting to a prior conviction for
which he spent time in prison. (Id. at p. *2.)
On remand the prosecution declined to retry the aggravating factors and proceeded
directly to resentencing.{RT 25-26} Before resentencing, the court struck one of
Anderson’s prior strikes, leaving one remaining.{RT 27-28} The court then sentenced
2
Anderson to the upper term of four years for the assault conviction, doubled due to the
prior strike, plus a five-year enhancement for a serious felony prior, and a concurrent
sentence of 364 days in county jail for the misdemeanor conviction, for an aggregate term
of 13 years.{RT 27-29; CT 52-53}
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Anderson on appeal, and counsel filed a brief
setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and asking us to conduct
an independent review of the record. Counsel’s brief identified three possible issues,
none of which we find meritorious. We offered Anderson an opportunity to file a
personal supplemental brief, and he did so.
Anderson’s brief, styled as a complaint, argues a wide-ranging number of “causes
of action” against parties including the warden of his current prison, the prison librarian,
counsel for his prison, the people of the state of California, and “does 1 through
3.”{Supp. Brief at pp. 2-4} Anderson complains that he was not permitted to confront
the witnesses against him as required under the Sixth Amendment{Supp. Brief at pp. 5-
6}, that he was not afforded the equal protection of the laws{Supp. Brief pp. 7-8}, that
the United States Supreme Court erred by denying his writ of certiorari{Supp. Brief at
pp. 14-15}, that prison officials interfered with his ability to seek rehearing on this
denial{Supp. Brief at pp. 21-24}, that the prosecution against him was vindictive{Supp.
Brief at p.15} and that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Anderson’s prior
conviction.{Supp. Brief at p. 8-9, 14-15, 23}
3
Most of Anderson’s claims are too conclusory for us to be able to meaningfully
address (e.g. his generic claims regarding his constitutional rights), not properly before us
(e.g. his claims against prison officials and the United States Supreme Court), and/or
concern alleged errors in his trial rather than in his resentencing, and therefore should
have been raised in his first direct appeal if at all (e.g., claims about vindictive
prosecution or confrontation clause issues). Anderson’s claims about the admission of
his prior conviction for domestic violence at trial have already been considered and
rejected in his first appeal. (People v. Anderson, supra, E081601.)
Having independently reviewed the record for potential error and finding no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Anderson, we affirm
the trial court.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAPHAEL
J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
4