Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVA027528. Raymond L. Haight III, Judge.
Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P.J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant is serving a 32-month prison term after pleading guilty to petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666) and admitting a prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)
On January 19, 2007, defendant’s counsel requested a psychological evaluation pursuant to Penal Code section 1368 and 1369. On February 23, 2007, after reviewing the evaluation, the trial court declared appellant competent to stand trial.
On that same day, defendant also requested a Marsden hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion. During the hearing, the trial court and defendant discussed whether he wished to represent himself. The trial court warned defendant about the dangers of self-representation and urged him to consider the matter before making a formal request. Defendant agreed to think about the issue until the next pretrial hearing.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
On April 6, 2007, defendant entered his guilty plea. He filed his notice of appeal on May 17, 2007.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant entered a grocery store and shoplifted two bottles of liquor and a small box of hot wings. Loss prevention workers observed him leaving the store without paying for the items, detained him, and took him to the employee’s break room. The items were found in defendant’s pants.
DISCUSSION
Upon defendant’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST J., MILLER J.