Filed 3/29/17 P. v. Naffa 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

NIDAL NAFFA,

Defendant and Appellant.
D070134



(Super. Ct. No. SCE353323)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge. Affirmed.
Benjamin Kington for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Nidal Naffa of unlawful taking and driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d; count 2). Naffa admitted one serious/violent felony prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, (subds. (b)-(i)) plus three prison priors and the court found a fourth one to be true. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
At sentencing, the trial court struck the serious/violent felony prior and stayed the sentence on count 2 as well as on the prison priors. Naffa was sentenced to the upper term of three years on count 1. Naffa filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Naffa the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In August 2015, a pickup truck was stolen from a pizza restaurant. Early the next morning sheriff's deputies observed Naffa enter the stolen truck and drive away. Deputies had placed a device on the truck's tire that caused it to deflate. When the truck stopped, deputies approached the truck and found Naffa was the sole occupant. He was arrested.
Naffa made a statement to police that he was going to buy the truck from "Rick." He said Rick was with him in the truck when they stopped for the flat tire, but that Rick walked away.
DISCUSSION
As we have discussed, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting this court to review the record for error. In order to assist our review and to comply with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on motive;
2. Whether Naffa's counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a mistrial after a detective mentioned Naffa was comfortable with one of the deputies in the interview, who Naffa knew from "before."
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Naffa on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:



BENKE, Acting P. J.



HALLER, J.