Filed 7/14/22 P. v. Kirkpatrick CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert Alan Knox. Affirmed.

Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Thomas Leslie Kirkpatrick on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court he found no issues to argue on Kirkpatrick’s behalf.

Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006)

40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.)

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to one issue that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised the following issue: whether the trial court’s denial of the petition for relief under Penal Code section 1203.4 should be reversed? Kirkpatrick filed a supplemental brief, but it did not raise any new issues. It was a copy of what counsel filed.

We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders and considered the issue listed by counsel. We found no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Kirkpatrick pleaded guilty to a violation of Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (b), stalking with a restraining order. He also admitted two prior strike convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(2)(A). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court struck the prior convictions, and sentenced Kirkpatrick to three years of probation. The court imposed various terms and conditions of probation including a $300 restitution fine, and that Kirkpatrick comply with a protective order.

Kirkpatrick admitted a violation of probation, and the trial court found he violated probation. The court reinstated probation and sentenced Kirkpatrick to credit for time served of 104 days in county jail. On May 11, 2021, the court terminated probation pursuant to Penal Code sections 1203.1 and 1203a.

Later, the trial court denied without prejudice Kirkpatrick’s petition for relief under Penal Code section 1203.4, stating the following: Kirkpatrick had violated probation; he owed the balance of $200 in fines and fees; and he had not made an adequate showing that relief was warranted in the interest of justice. Kirkpatrick filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders and considered the issues listed by counsel. We find no arguable issues on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

SANCHEZ, J.

MARKS, J.*

*Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.