Opinion
D076002
03-23-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON CURTIS STEPHENS, Defendant and Appellant.
Russell S. Babcock, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD272074) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth K. So, Judge. Affirmed. Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
As part of a plea agreement, Brandon Curtis Stephens pleaded guilty to possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378); attempted extortion (Pen. Code, §§ 520 and 664); and robbery (§ 211). Stephens admitted the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)) and admitted a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The parties stipulated to a term of 29 years eight months in prison. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Thereafter, Stephens was permitted to represent himself. He filed a motion to withdraw his plea, a motion to arrest judgment and a motion to disqualify the judge. All motions were denied. Stephens was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
Stephens filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief, (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)), indicating he has been unable 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 Stephens the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Stephens has responded and filed a supplemental brief. We will address Stephens's issues below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 13, 2017, Stephens took property from another by force or fear. On July 20, 2017, Stephens possessed a useable amount of methamphetamine for sale. Between May 7 and July 18, 2017, Stephens attempted to extort property from another.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende and asks this court to review the record for possible 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 the following possible, but not arguable issues for our consideration:
1. Whether the court erred in not allowing Stephens to see part of the discovery;
2. Whether the court erred in denying the motion to strike the "strike" prior;
3. Whether the court erred in declining to strike the serious felony prior;
4. Whether the court erred in allowing Stephens to represent himself;
5. Whether the court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea; and
6. Whether the court erred in failing to grant the motion to disqualify under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.
In his supplemental brief, Stephens raised a number of possible issues regarding both record-based assertions and some outside the record. Principally, he challenges his guilty plea. Stephens contends there was not a sufficient factual basis for the plea. Specifically, he argues there should have been much more information in the plea agreement, such as names and statements of witnesses, police reports and other materials. He argues the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that he should have been given additional discovery material. We have reviewed all of Stephens's submission. He has not raised an arguable issue for reversal on appeal in light of the current record.
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 Stephens on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. AARON, J.