Filed 6/16/25 P. v. Meredith CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084278 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN426631) DAVID MEREDITH, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed.

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

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

David Meredith pleaded guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Meredith

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. also admitted he used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The parties agreed the sentence would be left to the trial judge.

The court struck the punishment for the weapon enhancement and imposed a total term of 12 years in prison for the two counts and the great bodily injury enhancement.

Meredith filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 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 Meredith the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, Meredith stated, “I did unlawfully with the intent to kill assault another with a knife causing great bodily injury. I did assault another unlawfully with a knife or deadly weapon, causing great bodily injury.”

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, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court abused its discretion in sentencing Meredith on multiple enhancements in a single case.

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 Meredith on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

DATO, J.