Filed 1/18/18 P. v. Silva 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

ERICK SILVA,

Defendant and Appellant.
D072379



(Super. Ct. No. SCD270599)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge. Affirmed.
Appellate Defenders, Inc. and Helen S. Irza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
As part of a plea agreement, Erick Silva entered a guilty plea to one count of grand theft in an amount in excess of $950 (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). Silva admitted three prison prior convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The parties stipulated Silva would serve a six-year term in local custody (three-year upper term plus one year for each prison prior). The People agreed to dismiss the remaining counts and allegations and not to file further criminal charges on "known" burglaries and thefts. Silva agreed to waive the right to appeal the stipulated sentence.
Prior to sentencing, Silva requested the court to compel the office of appointed counsel (OAC) to provide him with a forensic psychological evaluation so he could request treatment under sections 4011 and 4011.8. The court denied Silva's request and sentenced him in accordance with the stipulation. The court followed the probation officer's recommendation and declined to allow any part of Silva's sentence to be served in mandatory supervision.
Silva filed a timely notice of appeal, without obtaining 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 she 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 Silva the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, and he has filed a supplemental letter brief, which we will discuss below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The offense to which Silva pleaded guilty involved the theft of $1,800 worth of merchandise from Nordstrom Rack in San Diego.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting our review of the record for error. In order to assist the court in that review, and to comply with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues for our consideration:
1. Did the court err in denying Silva's request under section 4011 and whether the issue is cognizable on appeal?
2. Was Silva's admission of the prison priors valid?
3. Did the court abuse its discretion in declining to allow any part of the sentence to be served under mandatory supervision?
In his supplemental brief, Silva has filed a number of pages of redacted documents which apparently dealt with his requests to OAC, prior to his guilty plea, for appointment of a mental health expert. Those documents are not part of the record on appeal, nor do they appear to have ever been presented to the trial court. In addition, Silva raises the question of whether he should have been present when the trial court denied his motion to compel appointment of an expert, without a hearing. Silva asks this court to issue a writ of mandate to compel the appointment of an expert and then remand the case to the trial court.
Silva does not address his waiver of the right to appeal the sentence, nor does he address the validity of a challenge to both the plea and stipulated sentence without a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 78 79.)
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not been able to identify any cognizable, arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Silva on this appeal. The materials in Silva's supplemental brief, which are largely outside the record on appeal, do not present any arguable, potentially cognizable issue for reversal on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:


NARES, J.


HALLER, J.