Filed 11/23/21 P. v. Williams CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D079063 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF000891) JAMELL WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Anna M. Jauregui-Law, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2008, Jamell Williams was sentenced to a 21-year term in prison in a case which is not part of this appeal. While in prison in 2018, Williams was charged with possession of marijuana in prison. Williams entered into a plea agreement, under which he pleaded no contest to felony possession of marijuana in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a)). The parties stipulated to a two-year low term sentence. Williams was sentenced to the agreed term.

In March 2021, Williams filed a petition to have the conviction vacated under Health and Safety Code section 11361.8. In June 2021, the trial court denied the motion.

Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel 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 Williams the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS The parties agreed; “...if this case went to preliminary hearing, we would establish that there were two bindles containing marijuana found in defendant’s cell.”

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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the trial court err in denying Williams’s petition, (People v. Raybon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1056).

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 Williams on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The order denying Williams’s petition under Health and Safety Code section 11361.8 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

GUERRERO, J.