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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
4