People v. Gauthier CA4/3

Filed 6/15/16 P. v. Gauthier 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G052065

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13CF3590)

JEREMY JOHN GAUTHIER, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert R. Fitzgerald, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Jeremy John Gauthier, in pro. per.; and Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

1. Introduction Jeremy John Gauthier (Defendant) appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to one count (count 2) of possession of a firearm by a felon and one count (count 3) of accessory after the fact. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel provided issues to assist us in conducting our independent review. Defendant was granted 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf. He has filed a supplemental brief. We have examined the entire record, counsel’s Wende/Anders brief, and Defendant’s supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and we find no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel has suggested five issues to assist us in our review. None has merit. In his supplemental brief, Defendant raises six issues, which we address in the Discussion section. None of the issues raised by Defendant supports reversal. We therefore affirm. 2. Evidence at Preliminary Hearing Defendant and codefendant Martin Joseph Ryan initially were charged by felony complaint. A preliminary hearing was conducted. The testimony at the preliminary hearing included the following: Tustin Police Officer Michael Fitzpatrick testified that on November 6, 2013, in the early evening, he was dispatched to a convenience store to investigate a report of an armed robbery. The owner of the store reported that he had been robbed at gunpoint by a man wearing a mask. On November 13, 2013, Tustin Police Detective Colton Kirwan spoke with Garden Grove Police Officer Herrera, who had made a traffic stop of a car driven by Defendant a few hours earlier. Herrera said he had noticed a black