Filed 2/23/22 P. v. Phillips CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Katherine Mader, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Edwin Phillips pled no contest to one count of failing to register as a convicted sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.015, subd. (a)).[1] Because he did not receive a certificate of probable cause, his appeal is limited to matters occurring after entry of his plea which do not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) Appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record and conclude no arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A felony complaint filed February 19, 2021 charged appellant with two counts of failure to register as a sex offender upon release from incarceration (§ 290.015, subd. (a)) and one count of failure to update registration annually (§ 290.012, subd. (a)). Appellant pled no contest to one count of failure to register (§ 290.015, subd. (a)). The trial court accepted appellant’s plea and dismissed the remaining counts. The court suspended the imposition of appellant’s sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for two years. Appellant timely appealed.

On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief requesting that we independently review the record for error. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) We directed counsel to send the record and a copy of the brief to appellant, and notified appellant of his right to respond within 30 days. We have received no response.

DISCUSSION

We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us and that appellant has received effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, ACTING P.J.

CURREY, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.