California Court of Appeal Jan 11, 2023 No. E079177Unpublished
Filed 1/11/23 P. v. Payne CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E079177
v. (Super. Ct. No. INF2101095)
JAMARCUS SEAN PAYNE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge.
Affirmed.
Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Jamarcus Sean Payne appeals after a jury convicted him
of misdemeanor spousal battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)), a lesser included
1
offense of willfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a
spouse, cohabitant, fiancée, girlfriend, or child’s parent as charged in count 1 of the
information, and felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 2). Counsel has
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential
arguable issue, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the
record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in
reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-
442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
7
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
SLOUGH J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for misdemeanor spousal battery and felony vandalism after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether there are any arguable issues on appeal that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment.
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.”
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.”