Opinion
E080985
11-30-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERKAN ERDINC BORLUCA, Defendant and Appellant.
Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF1901025 Helios (Joe) Hernandez (retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) and Thomas E. Kelly (retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.), Judges. Affirmed.
Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAPHAEL J.
In 2023 Erkan Erdinc Borluca pled guilty to multiple felonies. He appealed his judgment. His attorney has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende and Anders v. California informing this court they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent review of the record. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm.
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).
BACKGROUND
In 2020 the Riverside County District Attorney charged Borluca with forcibly taking a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)), inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), and attempted kidnapping (Pen. Code, §§ 664/207, subd. (a)).
In 2023 Borluca pled guilty to all charges in exchange for 180 days in custody and probation. The court imposed a $40 court operations assessment fee for each conviction (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a $30 conviction assessment fee for each conviction (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $500 fee to the Domestic Violence Fund (Pen. Code, § 1203.097, subd. (a)(5)), a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $300 probation revocation restitution fine which it subsequently stayed (Pen. Code, § 1202.44). It also imposed conditions of probation.
Borluca appealed. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, and only challenges his "sentence or other matters occurring after the plea."
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Borluca on appeal, and counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Wende and Anders, setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel's brief raised no potential issues for our consideration. We offered Borluca an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Borluca.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
We concur: McKINSTER Acting P. J. CODRINGTON J.