People v. Gonzales CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 2/7/25 P. v. Gonzales CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083183

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD300439)

PAUL GONZALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed. Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Paul Gonzales entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded

guilty to one count of corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)) and one count of cruelty to a child (§ 273a, subd. (b)). The parties

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. agreed Gonzales would be placed on probation subject to serving 365 days in jail and attending 52 weeks of a domestic violence prevention program. The court granted Gonzales probation as contemplated by the plea agreement. Gonzales filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Gonzales the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. This case arises from a stipulated guilty plea thus we will omit a statement of facts. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and requests the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying Gonzales’s request to modify the criminal protective order. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Gonzales on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, J.

BUCHANAN, J.