Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Gabriel Trinidad was charged in Kern County with three conspiracy counts arising from an alleged plan to bring contraband into Wasco State Prison. The information charged conspiracy to possess a controlled substance in state prison, conspiracy to deliver a wireless communication device to an inmate, and conspiracy to furnish a controlled substance to a prison inmate. It also alleged that Trinidad had suffered three prior strike convictions. According to the preliminary hearing transcript summarized by the Court of Appeal, Trinidad was an inmate at Wasco State Prison, while his codefendant, Jesus Angel Campos Garcia, was not incarcerated. Their recorded telephone conversations allegedly revealed a plan to drop a package containing drugs and other contraband from an aerial drone on March 10 or March 11, 2022.
Correctional officers discovered a package on prison grounds in the early morning hours of March 11, 2022. The opinion states that the package contained approximately 88 grams of heroin, 52 grams of methamphetamine, and two cell phones, and that its contents were consistent with the items Trinidad and his codefendant discussed in their recorded phone conversations. The day the package was discovered, Trinidad called his codefendant to confirm that the drop had occurred. Under a negotiated plea agreement, Trinidad pled no contest to an amended count 2 for conspiracy to possess drugs, alcohol, or drug paraphernalia in a custodial facility and admitted the three prior strike conviction allegations. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court struck the prior strike conviction findings under People v. Superior Court (Romero) and sentenced Trinidad to the upper term of three years in state prison, fully consecutive to the sentence imposed for the offense for which he was then imprisoned.
The Court’s Holding
On appeal, Trinidad’s appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, identifying no error and asking the Court of Appeal to review the record and determine whether there were any reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Trinidad was afforded an opportunity to submit a supplemental letter or brief but failed to do so in the time allotted. The appellate court therefore addressed the appeal through the independent-review procedure described in Wende rather than through adversarial briefing on a claimed sentencing or plea error.
The Fifth District stated that it had conducted an independent review of the record and found no error. More specifically, it concluded that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues existed. The court did not identify a separate appellate claim or develop an independent challenge to the negotiated plea, the decision to strike the prior strike findings, or the upper-term consecutive sentence. Its disposition was succinct: the judgment was affirmed. The opinion was filed October 7, 2026, and was designated not to be published in the official reports.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after independently reviewing the record in response to appointed counsel’s Wende brief.
- The court expressly found that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues existed on appeal.
- Trinidad had an opportunity to file a supplemental letter or brief but did not submit one within the time allotted.
- The affirmed sentence was the upper term of three years in state prison, fully consecutive to Trinidad’s existing prison sentence.
- The trial court had struck the three prior strike findings under Romero in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves Trinidad’s appeal through California’s Wende procedure, with the appellate court conducting its own record review after counsel identified no error. The affirmance leaves intact the negotiated no-contest plea and the three-year upper-term sentence imposed by the Kern County Superior Court.
The opinion does not announce a new legal standard or separately adjudicate a sentencing challenge. Its stated result rests on the absence of reasonably arguable factual or legal issues following independent review, and the opinion is not certified for publication.