Filed 9/3/26 P. v. Ware 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(San Joaquin)
THE PEOPLE, C104364
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No.
v. STKCRFE20230010074)
JOSHUA MCKINZIE WARE,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua McKinzie Ware filed an opening brief
that set forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to him,
we will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
An information charged Ware with commission of a sex crime with a child 10
years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)—count 1)1; lewd acts upon a child
(§ 288, subd. (a)—count 2); possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a)—
count 3); and indecent exposure (§ 314.1—count 4). Numerous aggravating sentencing
factors were also alleged.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
In February 2025, Ware pled guilty to counts 2 and 3 for a stipulated aggregate
sentence of three years, and in exchange, counts 1 and 4 were dismissed in the interests of
justice. The factual basis for Ware’s plea was that he recorded himself removing a nine-
year-old child’s underwear, “placed his hand in between her buttocks cheeks and pressed
his hand in the portion of her buttocks cheeks … for his own sexual gratification.”
Sentencing was put over for the preparation of a presentence report including a Static 99
assessment.
In April 2025, the trial court sentenced Ware to the agreed upon aggregate term of
three years, consisting of the low term of three years on count 2 and the low term of 16
months on count 3, to run concurrently. The court awarded 553 days of custody credit
and ordered Ware to pay statutory minimum fines and fees. Following the
pronouncement of sentence, the trial court granted Ware’s motion to represent himself.
The court then stayed the sentence to give Ware an opportunity to file a motion to set
aside his plea.
In July 2025, the trial court lifted the stay of Ware’s sentence because he had not
filed a motion to set aside his plea. The court updated Ware’s custody credits to account
for the time between the original sentencing hearing and the July 2025 hearing, awarding
him a total of 670 days of custody credit. Ware timely appealed but did not obtain a
certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel for Ware filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and
procedural history of the case and requested this court review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) Ware was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30
days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and
Ware has not filed a supplemental brief.
2
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that are favorable to him. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
We concur:
/s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
/s/
KRAUSE, J.
3