People v. Toledo CA4/1

Filed 5/26/26 P. v. Toledo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087338 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. INF1900614) v. MANUEL ARMANDO TOLEDO, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Susanne S. Cho, Judge. Affirmed.

William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Manuel Toledo pleaded guilty to offenses in two cases as part of a plea agreement. In this case, superior court No. INF1900614, he pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245,

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (a)(4)) and admitted inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)

He also pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance in prison (§ 4573).

Toledo admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

In case No. INF2300271, Toledo admitted unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition. (§§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 25400, subd. (a), 30305, subd. (a)(1).)

Prior to pleading guilty, Toledo made a motion to replace appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court continued the matter for 30 days so Toledo could retain private counsel. Toledo never retained private counsel.

The court sentenced Toledo to a total term of two years in prison.

Toledo filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied.

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

This appeal follows guilty pleas. The charges arise from a confrontation between Toledo and a loss prevention officer during Toledo’s attempt to commit shoplifting. We will not set forth a separate statement of facts.

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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court erred in sentencing Toledo.

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 Toledo in this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

IRION, 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.