Filed 10/13/25 P. v. Jenkins CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084881 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS330687) BOBBY JENKINS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed.

Bobby Jenkins, in pro. per.; and Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Bobby Jenkins entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). He agreed to serve a period of eight months of mandatory supervision consecutive to a period of eight months of mandatory supervision arising from another felony case from a different court. Jenkins was sentenced the same day consistently with the plea agreement.

Jenkins 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 review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised Jenkins of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Jenkins has filed his own brief relying on alleged matters outside the record on appeal. He has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal based on the record on this appeal. In short, Jenkins’s supplemental brief does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has provided an accurate summary of the evidence at the preliminary hearing as background for the review of the guilty plea. We will incorporate the summary here.

On January 26, 2024, San Diego Police Officer Alan Martinez contacted a mall security officer named Carlos Guido concerning a report of a burglary at the Nike store on the 4200 Block of Camino Del La Plaza. Guido stated there was a suspicious vehicle outside of the Nike store. He viewed a subject walking out of the store in a gray shirt and dark pants get in the vehicle, and then drive away to a delivery area in the back. Guido followed the vehicle on his Segway and then blocked the vehicle from exiting by placing his Segway in its way. The driver, later identified as Jenkins, asked him to move or he would drive into the Segway. When Guido did not move, Jenkins drove his vehicle forward, causing damage to the Segway.

Surveillance footage from inside the Nike store depicted Jenkins approach a shoe rack with a brown Nike bag. He selected a pair of shoes, sat

down, and switched his shoes. After which, he made additional selections of shoes and clothes, and went out of the camera view.

Guido’s boss, the director of security, stated it would cost approximately $2,500 to repair the Segway, and $20,000 to purchase a replacement.

DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende.

To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified four possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of the case.

1. Whether Jenkins’s plea was knowing and voluntary.

2. Whether the court imposed a sentence that was consistent with the plea agreement.

3. Whether the court imposed lawful fines and fees.

4. Whether the court properly determined Jenkins was not entitled to custody credits.

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 Jenkins on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

DO, J.