People v. Valadez CA4/3

Filed 2/18/16 P. v. Valadez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G052051

v. (Super. Ct. No. 94CF1086)

RICKY GALLARDO VALADEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

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

We appointed counsel to represent Ricky Gallardo Valadez 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 he found no issues to argue on his behalf. We gave Valadez 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and Valadez did not file any written argument. 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 proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the 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, Valadez 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 one issue: Did the trial 1 court abuse its discretion when it ruled that second degree residential burglary was not a qualifying felony pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18 (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code)? We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and considered the information provided by counsel. We found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.