Filed 7/11/17 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

KURTIS D. SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.
D071150



(Super. Ct. No. SCS280795)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ana L. Espana, Judge. Affirmed.
Laura R. Sheppard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Kurtis D. Smith was charged with attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 664) and shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246). The prosecution alleged, among other things, that Smith had caused great bodily injury to another person in the commission of these offenses. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 12002.7, subd. (a).) It also alleged Smith had suffered a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a strike prior (§ 667, subd. (b)-(i)).
Smith was tried before a jury on these charges. Following deliberations, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The trial court declared a mistrial.
Smith and the prosecution entered plea negotiations and reached an agreement. The prosecution amended the information to add charges of pimping (§ 266h, subd. (a)), assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). Smith pleaded guilty to the added charges and admitted the prior strike allegation. The original charges were dismissed, and Smith was sentenced to a stipulated sentence of 15 years 4 months in prison, calculated as follows: the upper term of six years for pimping, doubled under section 667, subdivision (e)(1); one-third the middle term of three years for assault, doubled under the same section; and one-third the middle term of two years for possession of a firearm by a felon, also doubled under the same section.
Smith appeals. He requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied. His appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Smith's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Smith the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
The following facts are taken from Smith's change of plea form. Smith unlawfully derived support and maintenance from the proceeds of prostitution by Lonniesha Brown, whom Smith knew to be a prostitute. He committed an assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury upon John Doe. And, between May 15, 2015 and July 22, 2015, Smith had a firearm in his possession, custody, and control after being convicted of felony.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, Smith's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Instead, Smith's counsel identified five possible issues under Anders: (1) "Did the trial court err by allowing [] Smith to plead to charges not included in the amended information filed at trial?" (2) "Did the trial court err by refusing to relieve counsel pursuant to a Marsden hearing." (3) "Did the trial court err in proceeding with the plea after [] Smith stated that he could not read the plea form without glasses?" (4) "Did the trial court err in proceeding with the plea when Smith appeared uncertain of the charges he was pleading guilty to?" (5) "Did the trial court err, or did defense counsel commit IAC [i.e., ineffective assistance of counsel], by failing to file or hear a motion to withdraw Smith's plea?" (Some capitalization omitted.)
We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and considered the possible issues identified by Smith's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Smith in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:



AARON, J.



IRION, J.