People v. Sanchez CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 7/10/26 P. v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087334

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BAF1500234)

v.

ANDRE MARSALIS SANCHEZ et al.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Otis Sterling, III, Judge. Affirmed. James M. Kehoe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Andre Marsalis Sanchez. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant David A. Almeras-Moreno. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Andre Marsalis Sanchez and David A. Almeras-Moreno were charged with several offenses, including attempted murder of a Sheriff’s Deputy in 2016. They were convicted following a jury trial in 2019. The trial court granted the appellants’ request for a new trial and set aside the convictions. In 2025, Sanchez and Moreno entered into a joint plea agreement with stipulated sentences. Moreno pleaded guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664 and 187). Sanchez pleaded guilty to attempted murder and to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Sanchez was sentenced to a stipulated term of 21 years to life in prison. Moreno was sentenced to a stipulated term of 15 years to life in prison. Both appellants have filed timely notices of appeal. Counsel have been appointed for both Sanchez and Moreno, and each counsel has filed briefs in this appeal. The briefs filed by both counsel are filed under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel have not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Both counsel have asked the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered each appellant the opportunity to file their own brief in this appeal. Neither appellant has responded to our notice. DISCUSSION As we have noted, both counsel have filed a brief under the authority of Wende indicating appellate counsel have not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Both counsel ask the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist the court in its review of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel have identified possible issues that have been considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.

2 Appellant Moreno submits there is a possible question whether Moreno was properly advised of his rights prior to pleading guilty. Appellant Sanchez asks whether he was properly advised of his rights before pleading guilty and whether there was a factual basis for the guilty pleas. 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 have represented each appellant in this case. DISPOSITION The judgment as to each appellant in this case is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

KELETY, 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