People v. Ghafoori CA4/3

Filed 9/19/23 P. v. Ghafoori CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062181

v. (Super. Ct. No. 19HF0464)

MAFOOZ MATTHEW GHAFOORI, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy. Affirmed. Thien Houng Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Mafooz Matthew Ghafoori on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court he found no issues to argue on his behalf. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised two issues: (1) was there insufficient evidence of elder abuse because there was no evidence Ghafoori actually knew the victim was 65 or older; and (2) was defense counsel ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s misstatement of the law concerning the deliberating order of the charged offenses and their respective lesser included offenses. We gave Ghafoori 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. Thirty days have passed, and he has not filed any written argument. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and we found no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm the judgment. FACTS The 72-year-old victim lived in a house in Mission Viejo. Ghafoori rented a room from the victim and lived there for several months without incident. One day near noon, the victim was on her bed when Ghafoori opened her bedroom door and told her to get out of her room. Ghafoori was holding a tennis racket. The victim complied