P. v. Foster CA1/5 filed 6/22/26

Filed 6/22/26 P. v. Foster CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TAMIA FOSTER,
Defendant and Appellant.

A173843

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. 22-CR-003736B)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Tamia Foster appeals following her plea of no contest to one count of assault with a firearm. (Pen. Code, §245, subd. (b).)The trial court subsequently denied Foster’s motion to withdraw her plea, finding thatshe “expressly, knowingly and intelligently” agreed to the terms of the plea.Foster’s appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Foster did not file a supplemental brief. Having conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to the holding in that case, we affirm.
In October 2022, Foster pled no contest to one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)) and admitted the aggravating circumstance that she suffered “prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings[that were] numerous or of increasing seriousness”(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)). The parties stipulatedto a factual basis for the plea.Foster was released under a waiver pursuant to People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247. And during her release, she participated in programming that qualifiedher for custody credits towards her sentence.
In April 2025, Foster moved to withdraw her plea. She contended that “the plea ... was not knowing or intelligent” andraised a concern that if “sentenced on this deal,” she would lose her Section 8 voucher and likely be fired from her job.She further noted that her codefendant was tried and acquitted of murder in October 2023. The trial court denied the motion, finding that there was no “change of circumstance” and that Foster “was very adequately advised as to the terms and conditions of [her] plea agreement and expressly, knowingly and intelligently understood those rights.”Pursuant to the negotiatedplea, the court sentenced Foster to the lower term of three years in state prison. It awarded her 1094 days of custody credits, which satisfied this prison term.
The Wende brief filed by Foster’s counsel does not draw our attention to any issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386U.S. 738, 744. Foster was apprised of her right to file a supplemental brief but did not file one. Following Wende guidelines, we have conducted an independent review of the record and conclude that there are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

CHOU, J.

WE CONCUR.

JACKSON,P. J.
SIMONS, J.

A173843N/ P. v. Foster