Filed 10/7/26 P. v. Trinidad CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F090596
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. DF017188A)
v.
JUAN GABRIEL TRINIDAD, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf,
Judge.
Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J., and Harrell, J.
INTRODUCTION
Juan Gabriel Trinidad (appellant) pled no contest to conspiracy to possess drugs,
alcohol, or drug paraphernalia in a custodial facility. (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1),
4573.8.)1 He was sentenced to the upper term of three years in state prison.
On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no error and asking this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any reasonably arguable issues on
appeal. Appellant was afforded an opportunity to submit a supplemental letter or brief
but failed to do so in the time allotted.
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no error. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Kern County District Attorney’s Office filed an information charging
appellant and his codefendant, Jesus Angel Campos Garcia, with conspiracy to possess a
controlled substance in state prison (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4573.6; count 1), conspiracy to
deliver a wireless communication device to an inmate (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4576,
subd. (a); count 2), and conspiracy to furnish a controlled substance to a prison inmate
(§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4573.9; count 3). The information also alleged that appellant
suffered three prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d).)
According to the preliminary hearing transcript, appellant, an inmate at Wasco
State Prison, conspired with his codefendant, who was not incarcerated, to bring drugs
and other contraband into the prison by dropping a package from an aerial drone. Their
recorded phone conversations revealed the plan was to be executed on March 10 or
March 11, 2022.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
In the early morning hours of March 11, 2022, correctional officers discovered a
package on prison grounds. The package contained approximately 88 grams of heroin,
52 grams of methamphetamine, and two cell phones. The contents of the package were
consistent with the items appellant and his codefendant discussed in their recorded phone
conversations. The day the package was discovered, appellant called his codefendant to
confirm the drop had occurred.
Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement, appellant pled no contest to
an amended count 2, conspiracy to possess drugs, alcohol, or drug paraphernalia in a
custodial facility (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4573.8) and admitted the three prior strike
conviction allegations. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court struck the
prior strike conviction findings pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
13 Cal.4th 497, and sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years in state prison,
fully consecutive to the sentence imposed for the offense for which appellant was then
imprisoned. (See § 1170.1, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellant’s counsel filed a Wende brief identifying no error and
asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues
on appeal. We have conducted an independent review of the record. We find that no
reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
3