Filed 8/7/26 P. v. Howard 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086556
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD304105)
v.
MASHELL HOWARD,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
John G. Pro and Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed.
Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Mashell Howard was charge with multiple felony counts arising out of
domestic violence. The charges were resolved by a plea agreement with a
stipulated sentence. Howard pleaded guilty to domestic violence (Pen. Code,1
§ 273.5, subd. (a), count 2); violation of a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1),
count 8; and two counts of assault with force likely to cause great bodily
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4), counts 3 and 7). Howard admitted inflicting great
bodily injury. She stated:
“[I] stipulate to facts contained in the preliminary hearing
transcript[ ] in that I committed two assaults with force likely to
produce great bodily injury, corporal injury resulting in
traumatic condition with personal infliction of great bodily injury,
and violated a domestic violence restraining order.”
The court sentenced Howard to prison for a six-year term. The court
imposed various fines and fees but deemed the fines and fees satisfied by
time in custody. The court also imposed a 10-year criminal protective order,
which it later modified.
Howard filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We
notified Howard of her right to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not
respondent to our notice.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738
(Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
During the July 17, 2025 hearing regarding the protective order, the
court declined to look for a letter in the file from Howard addressing fines
and credits. The possible issue would be whether the court should have
reviewed the letter and addressed its contents even though the hearing was
only scheduled to address the protective order.
2
During the July 17, 2025 hearing, Howard mentioned her problems
with the restitution order. The court declined to address that unscheduled
topic and directed counsel to consider filing an appropriate motion to address
such issues.
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Howard in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
3