Filed 12/28/23 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, C097247 v. (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2022-0005898) GENE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Gene Williams asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I Defendant stabbed the victim twice in the back with a knife, resulting in great bodily injury. Defendant then fled in his car.

Defendant pleaded no contest to assault with a knife, a deadly weapon, and admitted a great bodily injury allegation. Defendant’s counsel stipulated to the upper term because defendant has prior convictions as an adult that are numerous and of increasing seriousness.

On October 24, 2022, defendant asked to withdraw his plea and obtain new counsel. The trial court held a Marsden1 hearing and denied both requests.

The trial court then sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of seven years, comprised of four years (the upper term) for the assault conviction plus a consecutive three years for the enhancement.

II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.

More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/S/ MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/S/ RENNER, J.

/S/ MESIWALA, J.

1 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.