Filed 7/20/23 P. v. Martinez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D080816 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD275948) ERNESTO C. MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.

Kevin Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Ernesto C. Martinez entered into a plea agreement, in which he pleaded guilty to first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and admitted he personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53,

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (c)). The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed, and the parties stipulated to an indeterminate sentence of 45 years to life in prison.

Prior to sentencing, Martinez advised the court he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial under section 1018. Martinez claimed the plea was a result of ignorance and mistake and that he did not understand due to lack of an interpreter at crucial times.

The court relieved appointed counsel and appointed the alternate public defender to represent Martinez in his challenge to his guilty plea and sentencing. Thereafter, a motion for new trial was filed and the court held an evidentiary hearing.

The court denied the motion to set aside the plea and sentenced Martinez as indicated above.

Martinez filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)

Appellate counsel 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 Martinez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

DISCUSSION2 As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently 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 trial court erred

2 The facts of the offense are not important to the resolution of the possible issues on this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts. in finding Martinez had not shown good cause to set aside the guilty plea considering the claim of denial of an interpreter at critical stages and his history of brain damage from Martinez’s boxing career.

We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Martinez on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

RUBIN, J.