People v. Harris CA4/3

Filed 8/23/16 P. v. Harris 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G052827

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14NF3889)

BRIAN EVERETT HARRIS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, W. Michael Hayes and Beatriz M. Gordon, Judges. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * We appointed counsel to represent Brian Everett Harris on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that provided 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 Harris 30 days

to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and Harris 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 (Kelly).) Harris did not raise any issues himself. Pursuant to Anders v. State of 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 the following three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying Harris’s motion to represent himself; (2) whether Harris had a plausible self-defense argument; and (3) whether Harris was effectively represented during the trial court proceedings. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and the information provided by counsel. We found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. FACTS Late one evening, officers Rafael Orozco and Priscilla Owens responded to a call and spoke with Erica Turner. Turner was bleeding profusely down her neck and chest area. Turner suffered a stab wound to the left side of her neck. The treating doctor said the stab wound did not hit any arteries but went through all the layers of muscle. Turner said a man by the name of “No Good” had been calling her wanting to retrieve his clothes that he had left in her motel room. She described the person as a thin black male from Ethiopia, about five foot seven inches tall. Later that evening, Turner answered her phone and told Harris that she would meet him and give him his