Filed 8/21/25 P. v. Rohde CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D085019 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV23001586) WILLIAM PAUL ROHDE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Jon D. Ferguson, Judge. Affirmed.

Laura Beth Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

William Paul Rohde appeals the judgment sentencing him to prison for years after he pled no contest to lewd act on a child under 14 and admitted to a prior strike. His appointed counsel filed a brief in which she raised no claims of error and invited us to review the record independently for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We have done so and found no error requiring reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND The People charged Rohde with two counts of lewd act on a child under (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); subsequent undesignated section references are to this code) and one count of dissuading a witness from causing the prosecution of a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)). The People also alleged a life- top allegation (§ 667.61, subds. (a) & (b)) due to a prior conviction for lewd act on a child under 14 by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)) as a prior strike and as a serious prior felony conviction (§1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).

After arraignment, the People filed a motion to consolidate these charges with charges filed against Rohde in another case involving the same victim. Rohde filed an opposition to the motion. Prior to the motion hearing, Rohde entered a plea bargain with the district attorney. Pursuant to the plea bargain, Rohde pled no contest to one count of a lewd act on a child under 14 and admitted the strike prior allegation. The plea bargain included a stipulated sentence for the upper term, eight years, doubled for the prior strike, for a total of 16 years.

Prior to the sentencing hearing, the trial court learned Rohde wished to move to withdraw his plea. It therefore relieved the public defender, appointed an attorney from the conflicts panel, ordered the preparation of transcripts, and set a motion hearing date. In August 2024, the court heard and denied Rohde’s motion to withdraw his plea. Rohde was then sentenced pursuant to the plea bargain.

DISCUSSION Rohde’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she summarized the proceedings, raised no claims of error, and asked us to review the record independently for error. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 [appellate court must “conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues”].) We advised Rohde he could file a supplemental brief, but he did not.

We have reviewed the entire record, as required by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and determined there are no grounds for reversal or modification of the judgment. We also have determined Rohde received competent representation on appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

KELETY, J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.