Opinion
D075517
11-25-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN S. RHINE, Defendant and Appellant.
Marianne Harguindeguy, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD278669) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Marianne Harguindeguy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
John S. Rhine entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution. Under the terms of the agreement Rhine pleaded guilty to attempted possession of a slungshot (Pen. Code, §§ 664 and 22210). He also admitted two strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The remaining allegations were dismissed. The parties stipulated that Rhine would be sentenced to a determinate term of 16 months in prison. Rhine was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. The court imposed a restitution fine of $400, a court operations assessment of $40, a $30 criminal conviction assessment, and a criminal justice administration fee of $154.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Rhine had previously submitted to a psychiatric examination and was determined to be competent to stand trial under section 1368. --------
Rhine filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).
Appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief (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 as mandated by Wende. We offered Rhine the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In his plea agreement Rhine stated he attempted to possess a slungshot and admitted two strike priors.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks this court to review the record for error. 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 possible issues she considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal: 1) was Rhine's plea knowing, voluntary and intelligent; 2) was Rhine denied constitutional rights when he was ordered to pay fines, fees and assessments without a hearing on ability to pay; 3) does the absence of an ability to pay hearing (without request) render the fines, fees and assessments unconstitutional; and 4) was trial counsel's failure to request a hearing on ability to pay ineffective assistance of counsel.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders and have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Rhine on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. O'ROURKE, J.