Filed 10/19/20 P. v. Pepper CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D077124 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS300220) ADRIANA C. PEPPER, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed.

Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Adriana C. Pepper pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)). The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. The parties agreed Pepper would receive probation and the court would consider alternatives to custody. Pepper was granted probation for three years. The court considered but rejected alternatives to custody and imposed 365 days in custody as a condition of probation. The court made subsequent orders to permit administration of certain prescribed medication to Pepper while she was in jail.

Pepper filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Pepper the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS Pepper drove a vehicle in a grossly negligent manner causing the death of another.

DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea; 2. Whether appellant was properly advised of her constitutional rights before entering her guilty plea; 3. Whether the sentence imposed was authorized; and 4. Whether the court erred in sending appellant to custody instead of an alternative.

We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders.

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Pepper on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.