Opinion
D079958
11-02-2022
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRICK ANTHONY COLEMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Jason Szydlik, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD280153, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Affirmed.
Jason Szydlik, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
Darrick Anthony Coleman pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The remaining charge and allegations were dismissed.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The court denied Coleman's motion to dismiss the strike prior. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) The court sentenced Coleman to the mid-term of two years, doubled because of the prior strike.
Coleman filed a timely notice of appeal challenging matters occurring after the plea.
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 Coleman the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but, he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This appeal is from a guilty plea. Coleman admitted he possessed a firearm as a convicted felon.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
1. Did the court err in denying Coleman's motion to strike the prior conviction (Romero motion)?
2. Did the court err in accepting Coleman's guilty plea when he was not physically present in court?
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 Coleman on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J., BUCHANAN, J.