People v. Maher CA4/3

Filed 6/18/14 P. v. Maher 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G049119

v. (Super. Ct. No. R00333)

DAVID WAYNE MAHER, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vickie Hix, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, §21.) Affirmed. Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant David Wayne Maher pleaded guilty to possessing a dirk or dagger in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(1). The factual basis for the plea states: “In Orange County, California, on July 10, 2010, I did unlawfully possess a weapon commonly known as a dirk/dagger.” Defendant was initially placed on probation, but it was later revoked and he was sentenced to two years in state prison. Thereafter, he violated the conditions of his postrelease community supervision several times. In October 2013, defendant was again found to be in violation of the conditions of his postrelease community supervision. The court revoked and reinstated supervision, and ordered defendant to serve an additional 160 days in custody. This appeal followed, without a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.) After defendant appealed we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts and the disposition of the case. He did not argue against defendant, but advised he had not found any issues to argue on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende ).) And, ostensibly to assist us in our independent review of the record, he suggested we consider certain specific issues pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Because defendant is a transient, his counsel was unable to contact him to advise him of the filing of a Wende brief and his opportunity to file his own supplemental brief. And we have received no communication from defendant. DISCUSSION Counsel represents his opening brief is filed in accordance with Wende. The court in Wende held: “We conclude that Anders requires the court to conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) A Wende brief, therefore, is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. (Ibid.)