P. v. Muhammad CA4/1

Filed 11/24/20 P. v Muhammad CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D077572

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD150409)

KWESI KHARY MUHAMMAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Kwesi Muhammad, in pro. per.; and Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2000, Kwesi Khary Muhammad pleaded guilty to one count of

violation of Penal Code1 section 288, subdivision (b)(1) and admitted an

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

enhancement under section 667.61, subdivision (a), (c), and (d). He was

sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life.2 In January 2020, Muhammad filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to correct the allocation of custody credits in the abstract of judgment. His motions were denied by the trial court. Muhammad filed a notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Muhammad the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Muhammad has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss that brief below. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. Technically, counsel has not complied with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) in that counsel has not identified any possible issues that may have been considered by counsel. However, this appeal from a motion to set aside a guilty plea and to correct the calculation of credits, brought almost 20 years after sentence, is plainly without any potential merit. Failure to fully comply with Anders has not hindered our review of this record. Muhammad’s supplemental brief addresses supposed issues that were not raised in the trial court. First, he claims he agreed to lifetime parole,