People v. Taylor CA4/1

Filed 10/16/24 P. v. Taylor CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082873

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE419660)

ROBERT TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Larenda R. Delaini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Robert Taylor pleaded guilty to one count of carrying a dirk or dagger

(Pen. Code,1 § 21310) with the understanding Taylor would be placed on probation and released from custody. Taylor was placed on formal probation

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

as agreed. The probation order restricted Taylor’s access to marijuana and required him to stay away from a specific gas station in Lemon Grove. Taylor filed a notice of appeal. While the appeal was pending, the court revoked Taylor’s probation and sentenced him to a two-year prison term to be served concurrently with a sentence in another case. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 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 required by Wende. We offered Taylor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. The facts of the offense underlying the guilty pleas are not relevant to this appeal. We will not include a statement of facts in this opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the court abused its discretion in imposing conditions of probation. 2. Whether the minute order granting probation should be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement of the order. 3. Whether the probation issues are now moot because the court terminated probation when it sentenced Taylor to prison.