People v. Seja CA4/3

Filed 4/22/16 P. v. Seja 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G052622

v. (Super. Ct. No. 15WF0859)

TONEZ HUNTER SEJA OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Affirmed. Jared M. Hartman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Tonez Hunter Seja 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 her behalf. We gave Seja 30 days to file written argument on her own behalf. That time has passed, and Seja has not filed 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.) 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: whether the trial court erred by ordering Seja to serve her sentence in prison rather than jail. Upon our independent review of the record as required by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, we identified an issue which may, if resolved favorably to Seja, result in reversal of the judgment for purposes of resentencing. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.256(e)(1), submission of this matter was vacated to permit the parties to file supplemental briefing on the following issue: whether the true finding on Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (c), required the trial court to impose a prison sentence. (People v. Vega (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1374 (Vega).) Counsel submitted briefing which we consider as part of our review.