People v. Mossman CA4/1

Filed 5/18/26 P. v. Mossman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086661 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD298349) MICHAEL MOSSMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.

Zach A. Brooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Michael Mossman was charged with two counts of elder abuse (Pen.

Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1)) (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) It was alleged the victim was over 70 years of age and suffered great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (c)). The charges also included an allegation of a strike prior conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).

Mossman filed a pretrial motion to relieve appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) which was denied. Mossman also filed a pretrial motion for mental health diversion (§ 1001.36).

The court received briefs and held a hearing. The court found Mossman had qualifying mental health issues, but that Mossman was shown by clear and convincing evidence to be a danger to the public. Mossman pleaded guilty to one count of elder abuse and agreed to an aggregate term of nine years in prison.

Mossman was sentenced to prison for a total term of nine years.

Mossman filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of 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 independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Mossman 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 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court abused its discretion in denying Mossman’s motion for mental health diversion.

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 Mossman in this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, 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.