Filed 11/12/25 P. v. Hernandez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084584 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN421466) MICHAEL HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed.

Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2022, Michael Hernandez pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Hernandez was placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions. In 2023, the

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. court revoked Hernandez’s probation for alleged violations. Hernandez was then reinstated to probation.

In July 2024, the court again revoked probation, and Hernandez was again placed on probation subject to 365 days in custody.

Hernandez 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 Hernandez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.

1. Whether Hernandez’s custody credits were properly calculated.

2. Whether the conditions of probation were reasonable.

We have independently 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 Hernandez on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

KELETY, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, 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.