Filed 10/19/26 P. v. Tomas CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
THE PEOPLE, C103489
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 24FE006531)
v.
VINCENT JUAN TOMAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Vincent Juan Tomas asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Late one evening in April 2024, defendant got into an argument with K.B. that
turned into a scuffle. When the victim told defendant to leave K.B. alone, defendant
pulled a handsaw from his backpack and started swinging it at the victim. The victim
responded by spraying defendant with pepper spray, but defendant kept coming closer, so
the victim kicked him in the chest. Defendant hit the victim in the face with the saw,
leaving a cut that caused a scar. Defendant fled the scene on his bicycle.
1
When police officers eventually detained defendant, they found a
methamphetamine pipe and a handsaw. Over defense objection, a recording of a 911 call
from a bystander was played for the jury.
Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (a)(1)—count one) 1 and misdemeanor unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11364—count two). It was further alleged that defendant had a
prior strike based on a 2006 conviction for shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§§ 667,
subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 246) and that three aggravating factors existed (Cal. Rules of
court, rule 4.421). 2
In October 2024, the jury found defendant guilty of counts one and two. In
bifurcated proceedings in February 2025, the trial court found true one aggravating
circumstance (rule 4.421(b)(2)) and that defendant had a prior strike.
Prior to sentencing, defendant asked the trial court to sentence him to the low term
and dismiss his prior strike per Romero. 3 Defendant argued that multiple enhancements
had been alleged, that the current crimes were related to drug addiction and mental health
issues, and that he had a traumatic childhood. In addition, he committed his lone prior
strike (which was more than five years old) when he was only 26 years old, and he
engaged in 12-step recovery meetings during his prior incarceration.
During the February 2025 sentencing hearing, the trial court declined to strike
defendant’s prior strike. The court then sentenced defendant to prison for four years on
count one (the low term of two years doubled due to the strike) and 180 days concurrent
for count two. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
3 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
2
corresponding $300 parole revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked)
(§ 1202.45), an $80 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $60 criminal
conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). 4 The court awarded 569 days of
custody credit (285 actual days, and 284 good conduct days).
II. DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the
opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication
from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant
4 In addition to the $300 restitution fine, the trial court also originally imposed an
additional restitution fine and corresponding (stayed) probation revocation fine
(§ 1202.45) on count two. However, at request of appellate counsel, in June 2026 the
trial court struck both fines. The trial court sent an amended abstract of judgment to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
3
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
RENNER, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/S/
KRAUSE, J.
/S/
MESIWALA, J.
4