Opinion
D080990
08-02-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HUGO PARRA, Defendant and Appellant.
Justin Behravesh, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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, Super. Ct. No. SCS311762, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed.
Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, J.
Hugo Parra entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11351) and admitted he possessed more than a kilogram of the substance (§ 11370.4, subd. (a)(1)). The parties stipulated that Parra would receive a split sentence consisting of one year in local custody, followed by four years on mandatory supervision.
All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.
Parra filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He also made a motion to replace appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), which was denied by the court. Parra ultimately retained private counsel.
The court denied Parra's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and denied a late motion to suppress evidence. Parra was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement.
Parra 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 issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Parra the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Parra admitted he possessed more than a kilogram of controlled substance for purpose of sale.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently 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 several possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
1. Whether there was a factual basis for the plea.
2. Whether Parra was properly advised of his constitutional right at his guilty plea.
3. Whether the sentence imposed was authorized.
We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Parra on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. CASTILLO, J.