Opinion
D081303
06-28-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEENAN DWAYNE DAVIS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCE397955, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.
Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, J.
Keenan Dwayne Davis pleaded guilty to attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211 &664) as part of a plea agreement. Under the terms of the agreement Davis admitted one count of attempted robbery and also admitted two firearm enhancements (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (e)(1) & 12022.5, subd. (a)) and admitted the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The parties stipulated the court would impose an eight year sentence but suspend execution of the sentence and grant Davis probation. The court sentenced Davis in accordance with the plea agreement.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Two years later, Davis admitted violating the terms of probation by failing to report. The court declined to reinstate Davis on probation and thus executed the prison sentence that had previously been suspended.
Davis filed a timely notice of appeal.
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 Davis the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In his change of plea, Davis admitted he "Did unlawfully with force or fear attempted to take personal property from another using a firearm and for the benefit of a gang (Lincoln Park)." Revocation of probation was based on appellant's admission he failed to report to his probation officer.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court properly sentenced Davis following the revocation of probation.
We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Davis on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., KELETY, J.