People v. Hijazi CA4/1

Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Hijazi CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086075 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF008292) NOORALDEEN HIJAZI, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Monica Lepe-Negrete, Judge. Affirmed.

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

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Nooraldeen Hijazi pleaded no contest to one count of submitting false claims (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 14107, subd. (b)(4)(A)). The remaining counts were dismissed. The parties stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea.

Hijazi was sentenced to prison for two years with execution of sentence suspended. Hijazi was placed on probation for two years subject to various terms and conditions. The parties stipulated to restitution in the amount of $20,751.13.

Hijazi filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of 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 Hijazi the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

This appeal is from a plea of no contest with a stipulation to a factual basis. We will not include a statement of facts in this opinion.

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

1. Whether Hijazi’s no contest plea was knowing and voluntary.

2. Whether the imposition of drug terms was proper.

3. Whether the court erred in declining to stay or waive fines and fees.

4. Whether the court erred by imposing restitution in the stipulated amount.

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 appellant in this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

DATO, 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.