People v. Bakier CA4/1

Filed 3/25/26 P. v. Bakier CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D085398

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD299651)

NOUR BAKIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John Pro, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Nour Bakier pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and was placed on probation with certain terms and conditions which included 365 days in local custody. Thereafter, Bakier violated probation on three occasions. Bakier admitted the third violation. The court revoked probation and sentenced Bakier to prison for the middle term of three years with credit for 419 days.

Bakier filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of 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 offered Bakier the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. We will not include a statement of facts since the probation violation was admitted by Bakier. DISCUSSION As we have noted, 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, counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether Bakier’s custody credits were properly calculated. 2. Whether Bakier made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a contested probation violation hearing. 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 Bakier in this appeal.