People v. Coghill CA4/3

Filed 6/16/14 P. v. Coghill 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G049249

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13WF1570)

DEREK JOSEPH COGHILL, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Edward W. Hall, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * We appointed counsel to represent Derek Joseph Coghill on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her

client but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. Coghill was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and he has not filed a brief. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When 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 (Kelly).) Here, Coghill did not file a supplemental brief raising any issues. Having filed a Wende brief, counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised the following five questions: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence Coghill violated probation; (2) did Coghill agree to termination of Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1210 et seq.) and, if not, was termination otherwise proper; (3) after revoking probation and imposing sentence, was it proper for the trial court to order as condition of probation Coghill pay a mandatory drug program fee of $150 for each specified drug offense; (4) did the court abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause; and (5) did the court properly take no action on Coghill’s petition to modify his sentence because his case was on appeal. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders and found no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm the judgment. FACTS Coghill entered a plea of guilty to the following: count 1-possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a); count 2-misdemeanor possession of controlled substance paraphernalia in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364.1, subdivision (a);