Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Late one evening in April 2024, Vincent Juan Tomas got into an argument with K.B. that turned into a scuffle. When the victim told Tomas to leave K.B. alone, Tomas pulled a handsaw from his backpack and swung it at the victim. The victim sprayed Tomas with pepper spray and kicked him in the chest, but Tomas struck the victim's face with the saw, leaving a cut that caused a scar, and then fled on his bicycle. Officers who later detained him found a methamphetamine pipe and a handsaw. Over defense objection, the jury heard a bystander's recorded 911 call.
The charges were assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), and misdemeanor unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia under Health and Safety Code section 11364. The prosecution also alleged a prior strike based on a 2006 conviction for shooting at an inhabited dwelling and three aggravating factors. In October 2024, the jury convicted Tomas on both counts. In bifurcated proceedings in February 2025, the trial court found one aggravating circumstance true under rule 4.421(b)(2) and found the prior-strike allegation true.
Before sentencing, Tomas requested the low term and dismissal of his prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero). He cited the multiple enhancements alleged, connections between the current offenses and drug addiction and mental-health issues, a traumatic childhood, his age of 26 when he committed the prior strike, and participation in 12-step recovery meetings during earlier incarceration. The trial court declined to dismiss the strike and imposed four years on the assault count—the two-year low term doubled because of the strike—and 180 days concurrently on the paraphernalia count, plus fines and fees, and awarded 569 days of custody credit. A footnote explains that, at appellate counsel's request, the trial court in June 2026 struck an additional restitution fine and corresponding stayed probation-revocation fine originally imposed on count two and sent an amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The Court’s Holding
The appeal proceeded under People v. Wende. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief describing the facts and asking the Court of Appeal to review the record and determine whether any arguable issues existed, rather than presenting a particular claim of error for decision. Counsel advised Tomas of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days after the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days passed without any communication from Tomas.
The court stated that it had examined the entire record and found no arguable error that would produce a disposition more favorable to Tomas. Its discussion therefore resolved the appellate review requested by counsel; it did not announce a new ruling on the admission of the 911 recording, the trial court's refusal to dismiss the prior strike, or the selection of the low term. Those matters appear in the factual and procedural history, but the opinion supplies no separate analysis deciding them.
The disposition states simply that the judgment is affirmed. Acting Presiding Justice Renner signed the opinion, with Justices Krause and Mesiwala concurring. The opinion leaves no identified issue open for further appellate consideration and orders no modification of the sentence; the previously corrected count-two fines and amended abstract are described only in the background footnote.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal independently examined the entire record after appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and found no arguable error that would benefit Tomas.
- Tomas received notice of his opportunity to submit a supplemental brief within 30 days, but the court received no communication from him after that period elapsed.
- The affirmed sentence included four years in prison for assault with a deadly weapon, reflecting the two-year low term doubled by the prior strike, plus a concurrent 180-day term for drug-paraphernalia possession.
- The opinion recounts the defense objection to the 911 recording and the unsuccessful Romero request but does not separately analyze or decide either issue.
- The trial court had already struck the additional count-two restitution and stayed probation-revocation fines in June 2026 and transmitted an amended abstract of judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision completes a no-merit appellate review by confirming that counsel's Wende procedure was followed and that the appellate court conducted its own examination of the record. The absence of a supplemental brief did not substitute for that review; the court expressly relied on its examination of the entire record in finding no arguable basis for a more favorable result.
For readers, the opinion's limited scope matters. It affirms the convictions and sentence but does not create a substantive precedent about handsaw assaults, 911 evidence, prior-strike dismissal, or sentencing discretion. Its account of those subjects is background to the Wende review, and the opinion is marked not to be published.