People v. Taplin CA4/3

Filed 1/18/24 P. v. Taplin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G062284

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11NF1700)

GARRETT EDWARD TAPLIN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Garrett Edward Taplin on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she 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. (Id. at p. 438.) Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. (Ibid.) 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 an issue that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel questioned whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order correction of Taplin’s criminal record to reflect his conviction in Orange County Superior Court case No. C-50346 for one count of violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated). We gave Taplin 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. Taplin filed a supplemental brief, and we address his claims anon. 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 sole issue is whether the trial court erred by declining to correct Taplin’s criminal record and forward that correction to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR). Accordingly, we only briefly describe the underlying facts.