People v. Chapman CA4/3

Filed 1/22/25 P. v. Chapman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063202

v. (Super. Ct. No. 23WF1445)

CHRISTOPHER SCOTT OPINION CHAPMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Larry Yellin, Judge. Affirmed. Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Christopher Scott Chapman on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court no issues were found to argue on Chapman’s behalf. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The court in Wende explained that a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. (Id. at p. 438.) Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. (Ibid.) When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. (Id. at p. 744.) Counsel raised four issues: (1) Did the trial court err when it concluded that the hung-jury reason the prosecution offered for using a peremptory challenge to Juror No. 147 was not presumptively invalid under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, subdivision (e)(1)? (2) Did the court err when it found that the prosecution’s exercise of a peremptory challenge as to Juror No. 147 was for race-neutral reasons within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure, section 231.7? (3) Was there substantial evidence to support Chapman’s conviction for robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c))? 1 (4) Was there substantial evidence to support the true finding on the personal use enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1))? We gave Chapman 30 days to file