Filed 8/3/17 P. v. Franklin CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRANDON JOSEPH FRANKLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068134

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1700291)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed.
Patricia M. Ihara, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant is serving a five-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to residential burglary with a person present in the residence and admitting one prison term prior. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On January 20, 2017, defendant entered a home in Perris with the intent to commit a felony. He assaulted a resident with a tile scraper.
On January 26, 2017, the People filed a complaint charging defendant in count 1 with residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), in count 2 with assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)) and in count 3 with damaging property valued at $400 or more (§ 594, subd. (a)). The People also alleged defendant had four prison prior offenses. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
On February 7, 2017, the court conducted a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, but denied defendant’s request to relieve his attorney.
On February 14, 2017, defendant pled guilty to count 1, admitted one of the prison priors, and admitted the added allegation that another person, other than an accomplice, was present at the residence during the burglary. (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21).)
On March 21, 2017, the court sentenced appellant pursuant to the plea agreement to the middle term of four years for the burglary and one consecutive year for the prison prior, for a total of five years in prison. Because of the allegation that another person was present during the burglary, defendant was to serve at least 85 percent of the five years. (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21).)
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:


MILLER
J.


SLOUGH
J.