People v. Jacquett CA4/1

Filed 6/10/26 P. v. Jacquett CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086472 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD302832) TYRICE JACQUETT, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.

Tyrice Jacquett, in pro. per.; and Susan S. Baugess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Tyrice Jacquett entered into a plea agreement with stipulated admissions and an agreed sentence. He pleaded guilty to attempted murder in count 1 (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)). Jacquett admitted an aggravating factor which would authorize an upper term sentence. Jacquett admitted being on bail at the time of the crime and admitted inflicting great 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. bodily injury. He also agreed he would receive a consecutive term from a different case. The parties agreed that the total sentence would be 18 years eight months.

Jacquett was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.

Jacquett 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 notified Jacquett of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief.

In his supplemental brief, Jacquett complains his counsel was ineffective and that he was pressured into pleading guilty and making the various admissions he did make. Jacquett does not identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal based upon this record.

The judgment in this case is based on a guilty plea with a stipulated sentence. We will not include a statement of facts based on the plea.

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

1. Whether the court failed to consider mental health diversion for Jacquett.

2. Whether the court properly imposed the upper term sentence for count 1 based on Jacquette’s admission of an aggravating factor.

3. Whether the court improperly considered a prior prison term sentence as an aggravating factor for count 1.

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 Jacquett in this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, 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.