Filed 2/19/25 P. v. Stengel CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083604 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS324849) LARRY STEWART STENGEL, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alejandro Morales, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Larry Stewart Stengel entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). Stengel was to be ordered to drug court and would be subject to a three-year sentence if rejected by drug court.

The remaining counts were dismissed.

The court ordered Stengel to drug court where he was accepted.

Eventually Stengel absconded from drug court and the court ordered the suspended three-year term to be executed. The court rejected Stengel’s request for a split sentence.

Stengel 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 independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Stengel the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

In his change of plea, Stengel stated: “[I] did willfully import a controlled substance into California[,] to wit[,] fentanyl.”

DISCUSSION 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 abused its discretion in declining to order a split sentence following the execution of the suspended sentence.

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 Stengel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

KELETY, J.