Opinion
D076336
03-03-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ENRIQUE FABIAN PALOMINO, Defendant and Appellant.
Appellate Defenders, Inc. and Jill Kent, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD280219) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Appellate Defenders, Inc. and Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Enrique Fabian Palomino entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of heroin for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11351) and admitted a strike prior. The parties stipulated to a two-year prison term consecutive to another case.
After the guilty plea, Palomino changed attorneys and brought a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court denied the motion. Thereafter, Palomino was sentenced to the term agreed to in the plea bargain.
Palomino filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she 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 Palomino the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The change of plea form reflects Palomino admitted possessing heroin for sale and had a strike prior.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, counsel has asked this court to review the record for error as required by Wende. 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 issue she considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying Palomino's motion to withdraw his 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 Palomino on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.