Filed 7/19/17 P. v. Blueford CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAVAR BLUEFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.
D071415



(Super. Ct. No. SCS281165)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ana Espana, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Javar Blueford entered into a plea agreement. Under that agreement Blueford pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) as a lesser included offense of murder. Blueford also admitted the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The parties agreed to a stipulated sentence of 12 years in prison. Blueford was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
Blueford filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he 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 Blueford the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since this is an appeal from a guilty plea we will repeat his statement of the offense from the change of plea form: "I did unlawfully kill a human being without malice that resulted from a sudden quarrel. A knife was personally used during the commission of the crime."
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, and has asked this court to review the record for error. While counsel has invoked the requirements of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, counsel has not complied with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Counsel has not identified any possible issues for the court's consideration. We pause to comment this appellate counsel has consistently failed to comply with Anders in previous cases, which is not acceptable.
We have reviewed the entire record, and have been mindful of the absence of an Anders discussion in counsel's brief. We believe we can fairly determine if there is any arguable issue presented in this record even without the full compliance by appellate counsel. We note, for example that in his request for a certificate of probable cause, Blueford raised two issues. First, he complained that there had been several continuances over his objection, thus denying him his right to a speedy trial. Second, Blueford alleged his counsel had been ineffective.
We are also aware that at the time of sentencing Blueford declined to seek removal of trial counsel and withdrew his contention about counsel's ineffectiveness.
We are satisfied with our review of the entire record that there is no arguable issue for reversal on appeal presented by the record on appeal. While we remain critical of appellate counsel's continuing practice of ignoring the Anders requirement in cases such as this, we still conclude competent counsel has represented Blueford on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:



O'ROURKE, J.



IRION, J.