Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Holloway CA3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: C103535

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/16/26 P. v. Holloway 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

(Yuba)

THE PEOPLE, C103535

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF25-00618)

v.

ADAM EDWARD HOLLOWAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Adam Edward Holloway filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to
Holloway, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In March 2025, a correctional officer in the Yuba County Jail searched a “pod”
within the jail for evidence of “pruno.” Holloway was seen in that same pod displaying
“objective symptoms of intoxication, presumably from pruno.” Holloway told the

1
correctional officer, “you are not coming into this cell and making it out, bitch.”
Holloway also said, “if you fucking try to come in here, you’re going to get hit.”
Holloway told the correctional officer he would have the officer and his family
shot. Specifically, he said, “My homies are going to shoot you when you go to Training
Zone. They’ll shoot you at that gym.” This was, in fact, the gym where the officer
worked out; the officer regularly saw Holloway’s “associates” there.
The People subsequently charged Holloway with three felony counts, including
making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)). The People also alleged
Holloway was previously convicted of a strike offense (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(j),
1170.12). Holloway pled no contest to making a criminal threat and admitted to the prior
strike conviction. In exchange for his plea, the remaining charges and allegations were
dismissed, and the parties stipulated to a low term sentence of 16 months, doubled to 32
months for the prior strike conviction.
The trial court sentenced Holloway according to the terms of his plea agreement.
At sentencing, the court awarded Holloway 20 days of custody credit (10 actual and 10
conduct), imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole
revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked) (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $40 court
operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov.
Code, § 70373).
Holloway filed a timely notice of appeal; he appeals without a certificate of
probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Holloway
was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the

2
date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and Holloway has not
filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to Holloway.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

/s/
EARL, P. J.

We concur:

/s/
MAURO, J.

/s/
KRAUSE, J.

3