People v. Vogel CA1/2

── People v. Vogel CA1/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Vogel CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A174291 v. CHANNING JAY VOGEL, (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CF249189) Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Channing Vogel appeals from a judgment of conviction after he pleaded no contest to taking a vehicle without consent and was sentenced to two years in county jail. Vogel’s court-appointed counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Counsel advised Vogel of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he did not do so. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with our Wende obligations and find no meritorious issues. We thus affirm. BACKGROUND1 On May 19, 2024, Wilhelm Knodel noticed that two large limbs had been cut off a tree between his shed and the front of his property. A blue 1 The factual background is drawn from the testimony at the preliminary hearing and the probation report. 1 truck and trailer were “backed to [the] shed” and hooked up to one of Knodel’s Honda all-terrain vehicles. Knodel called the police and reported a “theft in progress” and “that there was someone on his property in his shed.” When Sergeant Dylan Balch of the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Office arrived in response to the call, he found Vogel inside the shed holding a piece of wood. Vogel told Sergeant Balch that he was “stacking wood,” and that he worked on the property “sawing, mowing, and weed whacking.” He further explained to Sergeant Balch that “he had observed Knodel’s yard out of hand and came over to help,” and that “he had also been at the property the prior day and was beginning to worry about Knodel because he had not been well.” Knodel told Sergeant Balch that Vogel had previously done yard maintenance for him six or seven times over a period of three or four years, but that the most recent such occasion was over a year before the incident. Knodel had not spoken to or seen Vogel in nine months and did not give him permission to be on the property that day. He also indicated that Vogel had “already stolen items from his shed,” including a BowFlex, table saw, hand tools, bicycles, and a second Honda all-terrain vehicle worth some $2000. Sergeant Balch then placed Vogel under arrest and read him his Miranda2 rights. Vogel admitted that he did not have Knodel’s permission to be on the property, and that he had taken the missing all-terrain vehicle to his own property about half a mile away without Knodel’s permission. Vogel claimed that he took the vehicle when he “noted a garage door open,” and “ ‘was going to hold onto it until I got hold of [Knodel], because the garage was open, man. Someone was in there. I hate to see his shit come up missing like that.’ ” 2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. 2  On June 20, the Del Norte County District Attorney filed a complaint, and on December 11, the operative information, charging Voge