People v. Clay CA4/1

Filed 7/25/22 P. v. Clay CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D079937

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN427468)

AUSTIN ANDREW CLAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry Elias, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Austin Andrew Clay in pro. per.; and Shaghayegh Dinata-Hanson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Austin Andrew Clay entered into a plea agreement, under the terms of

which he pleaded guilty to false imprisonment by force (Pen. Code 1 § 236/237, subd. (a)) and agreed to an immediate sentence of two years in

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

local prison. The remaining charges were dismissed, and Clay was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Clay 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 Clay the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Clay has responded with a one-page letter which discusses matters outside the record. He refers to a woman somehow involved in the case as a “Witch.” Whatever her role might have been in the events in this case, it is not contained in the record of this appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea form, Clay states he unlawfully violated the personal liberties of another by violence or menace. 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 one issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether Clay’s custody credits were properly applied to his sentence. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Clay on this appeal.