Full Opinion

Filed 10/29/26 P. v. Wilson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) THE PEOPLE, C105865 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. S08CRF0085) v. DERRICK JAMAL WILSON, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Derrick Jamal Wilson appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying his petition under Penal Code section 851.91 to seal his arrest records. 1 His counsel filed a no-issue brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Although this is not Wilson’s first appeal as of right, we have exercised our discretion to independently review the record. Having done so, we find no arguable error and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In 2008, Wilson pleaded no contest, pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, to two counts of second degree burglary (§ 459), one count of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and one count of receiving stolen 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 property (§ 496, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of three years in prison. In 2022, the convictions were “[s]et [a]side” pursuant to section 1203.4. In November 2025, Wilson petitioned under section 851.91 to seal the arrest records relating to his convictions. The People opposed the petition, arguing that the relief awarded under section 1203.4 was in error and in any event did not vacate his convictions within the meaning of section 851.91. In support, the People cited People v. E.B. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 47, 56, which held that “a change of plea and dismissal of the accusatory pleading under section 1203.4 is not the equivalent of vacation of a conviction under section 851.91.” The trial court agreed with the People and denied Wilson’s petition. Wilson timely appealed from the trial court’s denial of his petition. DISCUSSION Wilson’s appellate counsel filed an opening brief under People v. Wende, raising no issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record. (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised Wilson of the nature of the brief and informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief. Wilson did not file such a brief. Under Wende, “Courts of Appeal must conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief on direct appeal which raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221.) This procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right and is compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (Ibid.) In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court held that Wende independent review is not required in an appeal from a postjudgment order denying a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 222, 224-231.) The court further determined that, in such cases, Courts of Appeal may undertake an 2 independent review in their discretion. (Id. at p. 232.) In that case, and in the interest of judicial economy, our state Supreme Court conducted such a review. (Id. at p. 233 & fn. 6.) Because this is not Wilson’s first appeal as of right, the procedures under People v. Wende do not apply. Delgadillo addressed only the specific context of a postjudgment order denying relief under section 1172.6 (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 231, fn. 5), but its principles may apply in the present matter where, among other things, Wilson was informed that his counsel had submitted a brief invoking Wende. (See id. at pp. 232-233.) Given that circumstance and in the interest of judicial economy (see id. at p. 233, fn. 6), we have exercised our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. Having done so, we find no arguable error. DISPOSITION The postjudgment order denying Wilson’s section 851.91 petition is affirmed. /s/ FEINBERG, J. We concur: /s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J. /s/ KRAUSE, J. 3