Opinion
D080967
10-03-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIRELLOS SEFEIN, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County Nos. SCD282524, SCE392705, Daniel Link, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
This appeal arises out of guilty pleas in two separate cases. The pleas were taken at the same time and were later sentenced at the same time. The combined cases were resolved with grants of summary felony probation for two years.
Case No. SCE392705
Kirellos Sefein pleaded guilty to one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d) as part of a plea agreement in which the court agreed to delay sentencing for one year to allow Sefein to pay restitution and receive counselling.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
When the matter was called for sentencing, Sefein ultimately provided proof of payment of restitution and participation in a substantial amount of sentencing. The court declined to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor, but did grant summary felony probation with credit for Sefein's time in custody.
Sefein filed a notice of appeal.
Case No. SCD282524
Sefein pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft of personal property valued in excess of $950. The plea was entered under the same plea agreement and was subject to the same conditions as in case No. SCE392705. Ultimately Sefein was also granted summary felony probation for two years.
Sefein 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 independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Sefein the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
These convictions follow from guilty pleas thus there was no evidentiary hearing to determine the facts of the offenses. We will not construct a statement of facts in this case.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, counsel has filed a Wende brief and asked the court to independently review the record for error. Counsel has not identified any specific possible issues which should be disclosed in light of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Counsel recognizes the duty to diligently review possible meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Given there were no certificates of probable cause issued and the nature of the sentences imposed, we are satisfied we have been able to fully examine this record. Our review has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We are satisfied Sefein has been represented by competent counsel and that the judgments should be affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: DATO, J. BUCHANAN, J.