Filed 4/17/23 P. v. Tina R. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D081326 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. MCR22-030) TINA R., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Affirmed.

Sally Patone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In January 2022, Tina R. (Appellant) filed a pro. per. request for hearing for relief from firearms prohibition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 8103, subdivision (f)(1). In February 2022, the

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Bureau of Firearms filed a report noting that Appellant had a section 5150 hold in October 2018 and a 14 day proceeding under section 5250 in November 2015.

The trial court summarily denied the request without a hearing.

Appellant 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 consistent with the requirements of Wende. We offered Appellant the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.

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: Whether the court erred in denying Appellant’s request without granting a hearing.

We have reviewed the entire record consistent with Wende and Anders.

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

Competent counsel has represented Appellant on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The order denying Appellant’s petition for relief under section 8103, subdivision (f)(3) is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

DO, J.