People v. Searcy CA4/1

Filed 6/22/26 P. v. Searcy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086689 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD302513) v. DAMON SEARCY, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.

Damon Searcy, in pro. per., and Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Damon Searcy was charged with five counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). Count 2 was later amended to charge assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)).

Searcy requested mental health diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.22. The court found Searcy eligible for mental health diversion but found him to be otherwise unsuitable. Thereafter, Searcy pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery, one count of assault, and admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

The court sentenced Searcy to a determinate term of 14 years in prison.

Searcy filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which request was 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 advised Searcy he could file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief. Searcy raises two principal arguments. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a certificate of probable cause. Searcy also argues the court erred in finding him unsuitable for mental health diversion.

Based on the record in this appeal Searcy has not presented any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

This appeal is from a guilty plea without a certificate of probable cause and the facts of the various offenses are not probative of any issue raised by this appeal. Accordingly, we will omit a statement of facts.

DISCUSSION As we have noted, 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 (1067) 386 U. S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the appellant’s plea was knowing and voluntary, and whether appellant knew and understood he was admitting new strike offenses.

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 Searcy in this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, 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.