People v. Gonzales CA4/3

Filed 10/3/24 P. v. Gonzales CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063428

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21NF0139)

ANDREW JOSEPH GONZALES, OPINION JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Elizabeth G. Macias, Judge. Affirmed. Lisa M. Zember, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

In 2022, Andrew Joseph Gonzales, Jr., pleaded guilty to various crimes and enhancements. Under the terms of a plea agreement, the trial court suspended a four-year prison sentence and granted formal probation with terms and conditions. In 2023, after the trial court presided over an evidentiary violation of probation (VOP) hearing, the court revoked Gonzales’s probation and imposed the four-year prison sentence. Gonzales filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order revoking probation. This court appointed counsel for Gonzales on appeal. Appointed appellate counsel filed an affidavit and an opening brief raising no arguable issues.1 (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).) Gonzales did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. In the interest of justice, this court has independently reviewed the record. (See People v. Freeman (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 126, 133–134 [Wende review is generally not available following a VOP hearing]; but see People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230 [“if the appellate court wishes, it may . . . exercise its discretion to conduct its own independent review of the record in the interests of justice”].) We find no arguable issues and affirm the trial court’s order.