People v. Anderson CA4/1

Filed 8/22/24 P. v. Anderson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083103

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN443066)

GRANT WARNER ANDERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Kearney, Judge. Affirmed. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Following a bench trial, the court found defendant and appellant Grant

Warner Anderson guilty of felony resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code,1 § 69; count 1) and misdemeanor battery upon a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (b); count 2). It found true allegations that Anderson had suffered two prior

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). The court sentenced Anderson on count 1 to the low term of two years eight months in state prison, and on count 2 to a concurrent term of 365 days in county jail with credit for time served. It also resentenced Anderson in an unrelated San Diego County case (Case No. SCN432383) to a concurrent term of one year four months. The court denied Anderson’s request to reduce count 1 to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b), as well as his motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction under section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). Anderson’s appointed counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal, but lists two potential issues that we consider below. We invited Anderson to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not done so. Having considered the identified issues and independently reviewed the entire record on appeal, we conclude there are no reasonably arguable issues that would result in a modification or reversal of the judgment. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2023, an Escondido police officer responded to a report of a man threatening customers outside a business. When the officer arrived, he encountered Anderson apparently asleep on the ground. The officer announced his presence until Anderson became conscious. The officer’s body- worn camera captured his initial encounter with Anderson, as well as subsequent points during that day. Anderson showed symptoms of extreme intoxication; he was unable to stay awake, his clothes were disheveled, he had an unsteady gait, and the officer could smell alcohol. The officer arrested