People v. Shaw CA1/5

Filed 8/6/24 P. v. Shaw CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169343 v. ANDREW TYLER SHAW, (Del Norte County Superior Court Defendant and Appellant. No. CRF23-9323)

Appellant Andrew Tyler Shaw (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to possession of a belt buckle knife (Pen. Code, § 20410).1 Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm. BACKGROUND In July 2023, the District Attorney for the County of Del Norte filed a criminal complaint charging appellant with felony possession of a belt buckle knife (§ 20410); misdemeanor removing or possessing a shopping cart (Bus. &

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Prof. Code, § 22435.1); misdemeanor prowling (§ 647, subd. (h)); misdemeanor carrying a switchblade knife (§ 21510, subd.(b)); misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11354, subd. (a)).2 In August 2023, appellant entered a plea of guilty to possession of a belt buckle knife pursuant to an agreement to be placed on probation. The remaining charges were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.3 Appellant was released from custody on a Cruz waiver.4 The waiver required appellant to obey all laws, report to the probation department upon his release, and to appear in court on September 14, 2023. Appellant failed to contact the probation department. Appellant also failed to appear in court on September 14, 2023. The probation department recommended that the trial court sentence appellant to a term in custody. At the October 2023 sentencing hearing, the prosecutor argued appellant should be sentenced to the low term. Defense counsel