People v. Young CA4/1
People v. Young CA4/1
Opinion
Filed 12/20/24 P. v. Young CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084254 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2000152) NATHAN IVAN YOUNG, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Ronald I. Toff, Judge. Affirmed.
Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Nathan Ivan Young entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to a false instrument charge (Pen. Code, § 115) and agreed to pay victim restitution of $4,300.
Young was granted probation subject to 364 days in custody with 1,096 days of custody credits.
Young filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause.
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 offered Young the opportunity to 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court properly sentenced Young following the plea agreement.
We have 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 Young on this appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.