People v. Strong CA4/1

Filed 10/10/25 P. v. Strong CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084724

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD303467)

CLIFFORD WAYNE STRONG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Appellant, Clifford Strong entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to burglary of a business (Pen. Code, § 459). The parties stipulated that Strong would receive a prison sentence of 16 months and that the remaining charges and allegations would be dismissed. Strong was sentenced to a 16-month term as contemplated by the plea agreement. Strong filed a timely notice of appeal. He requested a certificate

of probable cause based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 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 mandated by Wende. We advised Strong of his right to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. There were no contested evidentiary hearings leading to this guilty plea. Accordingly, we will omit a statement of facts in this opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether Strong was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Strong on this appeal.