People v. Lemus CA4/1

Filed 12/13/21 P. v. Lemus CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D078553

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN411606)

JOSE LEMUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim Von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jose Lemus pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a deadly

weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Lemus was placed on probation for three years on various terms and conditions.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Two months later, the court issued an order to show cause why probation should not be revoked. Thereafter, the court held a contested revocation hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Lemus in violation of probation. Lemus was sentenced to a four-year term for the assault count plus a consecutive three-year term for the enhancement. The court also imposed various fines, fees, and assessments. Lemus filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel 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 Lemus the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The evidence at the probation revocation hearing demonstrated that after being placed on probation, Lemus was stopped by Oceanside police officers. A search of his person produced a folding knife. The trial court found the possession of the knife violated the terms of probation. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court erred by finding the folding knife found in Lemus’s possession was a deadly weapon.