People v. Gonzalez CA4/1

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: January 20, 2026
• Docket: D085003
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 1/20/26 P. v. Gonzalez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D085003

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD303611)

EMMANUEL GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed. Michelle T. LiVecchi-Raufi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from a judgment based on a guilty plea with a stipulated sentence and is governed by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Emmanuel Gonzalez entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and one count of driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (f)). The parties agreed Gonzalez would receive a split sentence of 18 months in local custody and 18 months in mandatory supervision. Gonzalez sought to withdraw his guilty plea and requested a hearing on his request to replace appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118). The court held a hearing and denied Gonzalez’s request. The court sentenced Gonzalez in accordance with the plea agreement. Gonzalez filed a timely notice of appeal and received a certificate of probable cause. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 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 Gonzalez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. This appeal is from a guilty plea with a stipulated sentence. We will not include a statement of facts regarding the offenses in this opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks 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, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Gonzalez’s motions to withdraw his guilty plea and remove appointed counsel. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Gonzalez on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

WE CONCUR:

DO, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3