Filed 6/7/17 P. v. Digrazia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOHN DIGRAZIA,

Defendant and Appellant.


G054184

(Super. Ct. No. 15CF2068)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert R. Fitzgerald, Judge. Affirmed.
John E. Edwards, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *


INTRODUCTION
Defendant John Digrazia pleaded guilty to resisting an executive officer in violation of Penal Code section 68, resisting an officer in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1), and disturbing the peace in violation of section 415, subdivision (2). Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel identified potential issues to assist us in our independent review. We provided Digrazia 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf; he did so.
We have examined the entire record, appointed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief, and Digrazia’s supplemental brief; we have found no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND
Digrazia was charged in an information with one felony count of resisting an executive officer in violation of section 68, and one misdemeanor count each of resisting an officer in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1), and disturbing the peace in violation of section 415, subdivision (2). During pretrial proceedings, Digrazia’s trial court attorney informed the court that a doubt had arisen in counsel’s mind as to Digrazia’s mental competence. The trial court suspended criminal proceedings, began mental competence proceedings pursuant to section 1368, and appointed two psychologists to each examine Digrazia.
After reviewing the reports submitted by the court-appointed psychologists, the trial court found Digrazia was a mentally incompetent person under section 1368, and ordered the Director of the Orange County Mental Health Department to evaluate Digrazia and report recommendations to the court. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Orange County Mental Health Department, the court ordered Digrazia committed to Patton State Hospital pursuant to section 1370. About six months later, after receiving updated information regarding Digrazia’s mental competency, the trial court found Digrazia was no longer a mentally incompetent person and reinstated criminal proceedings.
The trial court reduced the felony count of resisting an executive officer, in violation of section 68, to a misdemeanor. Digrazia pleaded guilty to all three misdemeanor counts. Digrazia stated the following as the factual basis for his plea: “On or about 9-11-15 in Orange County I willfully knowingly and unlawfully and by means of violence deterred & prevented officer Stroud, an executive officer, from performing his duty imposed by law.”
The trial court found a factual basis and accepted Digrazia’s plea. The court suspended imposition of sentenced and placed Digrazia on informal probation for three years on terms and conditions including that he serve 365 days in the Orange County jail. The court awarded Digrazia presentencing credit in the amount of 508 days. Digrazia appealed and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court granted.

ANALYSIS
Defendant filed a lengthy supplemental brief which fails to intelligibly identify any potential issues. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our
 
obligations under Wende and Anders, and we find no arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.)

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.





FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:



O’LEARY, P. J.



THOMPSON, J.