People v. Cole CA4/1

Filed 2/16/22 P. v. Cole CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D079263

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF27233)

RALPH COLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Lehman, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2011, Ralph Cole pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana in a custodial facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.6). He was sentenced to three years in prison, to be served consecutively to his existing prison terms.

In 2021, Cole filed a motion to vacate his conviction in light of Proposition 64, which changed the laws regarding possession of marijuana.

The trial court denied the motion.1 Cole 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 Cole the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The probation report states that Cole possessed 8.7 grams and 44.3 grams of marijuana while in a state prison. 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, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in denying Cole’s motion to vacate his conviction for possessing marijuana in state prison. We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Cole on this appeal.