Opinion
D083382 D083384
08-21-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CORBIN BLAKE JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Stephanie A. Lickel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Nos. SCD298514, SCD298799 Dwayne K. Moring, Judge.
Stephanie A. Lickel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, ACTING P. J.
This appeal arises from sentencing of appellant in three different cases, which sentences were combined resulting in a prison term of three years eight months in prison. Restitution in two of the cases was ordered in amounts stipulated to by appellant.
In case No. SCD298514, Corbin Blake Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and one count of identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(1)) and agreed to serve a two-year prison term consecutive to other cases.
In case No. SCD298799, Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of vehicle theft and agreed to a one-year consecutive term for that case.
Jackson was sentenced to a term of three years in prison.
The court ordered victim restitution in amounts agreed to by Jackson.
Several months later, the court recalled the sentence to address a third conviction. The court added a consecutive eight-month term for a total sentence of three years eight months in prison. The court reimposed the restitution orders, without objection from Jackson.
Jackson filed a 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 notified Jackson he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. 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 erred by not revisiting the victim restitution orders to which Jackson had previously agreed.
We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Jackson on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: IRION, J., RUBIN, J.