People v. Arthur CA4/1

Filed 9/10/26 P. v. Arthur 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087819

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCE437741) v.

JOSHUA ARTHUR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.

Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Joshua Arthur entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. The court granted formal probation subject to a 365-day jail sentence as well as other conditions.

Arthur filed a notice of appeal the same day.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the guidelines specified in 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 Arthur he could file his own brief on appeal. Arthur has not responded or submitted any supplemental brief.

This guilty plea was based on a stipulated statement that he committed the felony assault.

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 incompliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether Arthur was advised of and knowingly waived his trial rights, and whether Arthur was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.

We have independently reviewed the record for error. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Arthur in this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, 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.