Opinion
D076304
03-09-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANKIE DIAZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCD278081) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
As part of a plea agreement, Frankie Diaz pleaded guilty to four counts of forceable lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)). Diaz also admitted a "strike" prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The parties stipulated to a determinate term of 85 years in prison. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Diaz was sentenced to 85 years in prison as specified in the plea agreement.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Diaz filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Diaz the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
During the change of plea, Diaz admitted he committed four separate lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief asking this court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues he considered in his evaluation of the potential merits of this appeal:
1. Whether the court erred in denying the defendant's request for self-representation, relying on Indiana v. Edwards (2008) 554 U.S. 164 and People v. Johnson (2012) 53 Cal.4th 519; and
2. Whether the defendant's concerns that he was being given "experimental" medication is cognizable on this appeal as a challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Diaz on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: HALLER, J. O'ROURKE, J.