People v. Velasco CA4/2

Filed 3/4/24 P. v. Velasco CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E082338 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF2301644)

SALVADOR VELASCO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Walter H. Kubelun, Judge. Affirmed.

Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility, with allegations of two prior strike offenses (Pen. Code, §§ 4573.6, 667, subds. (c), (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)), defendant and appellant Salvador *2 Velasco declined an initial plea offer of four years in prison. He later pled guilty to the lesser offense of unauthorized in-custody possession of drugs (Pen. Code, § 4573.8) in exchange for a sentence of two years eight months, to run consecutively to his term for a Los Angeles County case, case No. VA060588. Velasco admitted a prior as part of the plea agreement (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)), the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, and Velasco now appeals.

On appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel’s review of the record uncovered no arguable issues, including after consultation with Appellate Defenders, Inc. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [threshold for “an arguable issue” requires “a reasonable potential for success”]; see also Redante v. Yockelson (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356 [counsel cannot contrive arguable issues].) Counsel therefore filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of facts, a statement of the case, and requesting that we independently review the record. Without suggesting any defect or omission, counsel suggested that we review whether defendant was sentenced according to his plea bargain terms. Defendant did not respond to notice of his opportunity to file a supplemental brief.

Defendant’s generic appeal requires no further background discussion. Having examined the record and completed our independent review (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106), we find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON J.

FIELDS J.