Filed 3/21/25 P. v. Martin CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B340415 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 23TRCF00087) REGINALD MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: In a single-count felony complaint filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, defendant and appellant Reginald Martin was charged with fleeing a pursuing peace officer’s motor vehicle while driving recklessly. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2.) On March 13, 2024, defendant pled no contest to the charge.

On July 1, 2024, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve the midterm of two years in state prison. Defendant received 38 days credit. The court ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court imposed but stayed a $300 parole revocation fine. (Pen. Code, § 1202.45.)

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which no arguable issues were raised.

On December 5, 2024, we informed defendant by letter that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments for us to consider. To date, we have received no response.

We have independently examined the entire record on appeal and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our independent review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109– 110.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________ LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. CHAVEZ, J.