People v. Montes CA4/3

Filed 4/15/15 P. v. Montes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G050162

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13CF0888)

PEDRO MONTES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

A jury convicted Pedro Montes of possessing cocaine base for sale and found he committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the Townsend Street criminal street gang. In February 2014, the trial court imposed an 11-year prison term. Montes’s appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel summarized the facts and procedural history of the case, and cited possible legal issues, but raised no specific issues, and asked this court to review the record to determine whether there were any arguable matters. Counsel submitted a declaration stating he reviewed the entire record. Counsel advised Montes he would soon file a Wende brief, provided him a copy of the brief and the appellate record, and advised Montes he could personally file a supplemental brief on his own behalf raising any issues he believed worthy of consideration. Counsel did not argue against his client or assert the appeal was frivolous. He did not move to withdraw as counsel but advised Montes he could ask the court to relieve him as counsel. We gave Montes 30 days to file a supplemental brief, but he has not responded. We have reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and therefore affirm the judgment.