Opinion
D075674
11-22-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAMUEL ALEJANDRO MARAVILLA, Defendant and Appellant.
Justin Behravesh, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCS305426) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed. Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Samuel Alejandro Maravilla appeals from his conviction after a guilty plea.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Maravilla pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or greater (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)). He admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Maravilla pleaded guilty without reaching any agreement with the People.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Maravilla was sentenced to the middle term of two years for each offense plus three years for the great bodily injury allegation. The sentence on count 2 was stayed under section 654.
Maravilla 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 issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Maravilla the opportunity to 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 this court to review the record for error. In order to assist this court in its review of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the possible issues he considered in his evaluation of the possible merits of the case: 1) whether there was a factual basis for the guilty pleas; and 2) whether Maravilla was properly advised of his constitutional rights before pleading guilty.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Maravilla on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. GUERRERO, J.