People v. Santiesteban CA4/3

Filed 2/19/15 P. v. Santiesteban 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G049970

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12CF2930)

VICTOR MANUEL SANTIESTEBAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, M. Marc Kelly, Judge. Affirmed. David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Victor Manuel Santiesteban 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 his behalf. Santiesteban was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and he did not file a brief. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of the 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.) Here, Santiesteban did not file a supplemental brief raising any issues. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised three issues: (1) was Santiesteban’s conviction supported by sufficient evidence; (2) did the information adequately notify Santiesteban of the perjury charge; and (3) is the incomplete polling of the jury reversible error. Pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 8.256(e)(1), submission of the matter was vacated to permit briefing on the following issues: (1) whether the court erred by failing to impose a sentence on Santiesteban’s perjury conviction; and (2) whether we should remand the matter for resentencing. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and considered the supplemental briefing. We found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.