Filed 8/19/24 P. v. Wright CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083275 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE417036) JUSTIN MICHAEL WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roderick W. Shelton, Judge. Affirmed.

Jennifer M. French, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Justin Michael Wright pleaded guilty to one count of carjacking (Pen.

Code,1 § 215, subd. (a)). As part of the plea agreement the parties stipulated to a six year prison sentence. Wright agreed to waive his right to appeal the

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. denial of his section 1538.5 motion and any issues relating to his strike prior and stipulated sentence.

The court sentenced Wright to a six-year prison term and imposed a stipulated restitution order in the amount of $2,634.36.

Wright filed a timely notice of appeal but did not request a certificate of probable cause.

As part of his plea, Wright admitted he took possession of a vehicle from the immediate presence of the victim by force or fear with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession of the vehicle. Wright also admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds.(b)-(i)).

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 independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We notified Wright that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he 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 three possible issues that have been reviewed in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.

1. Whether Wright properly waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion to exclude the curbside identification from evidence; 2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress identification evidence at the preliminary hearing; and

3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the information under section 995.

We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Wright on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

KELETY, J.