People v. Martinez CA4/1 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/27/22 P. v. Martinez 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D079004
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD272693)
    MAURICIO MARTINEZ,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
    Joseph P. Brannigan, Judge. Affirmed.
    Jay Temple, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
    and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under Penal
    Code1 section 1203.42. The trial court found Mauricio Martinez ineligible for
    relief under the statute and denied the motion. We will find the record on
    1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    appeal does not present any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. (People v.
    Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende).)
    In 2017, Martinez pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to produce
    great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). The court sentenced Martinez to
    three years on probation.
    In 2019, the court revoked probation and sentenced Martinez to a two-
    year term in prison.
    In 2021, Martinez filed a petition for dismissal of his conviction under
    section 1203.42. Following a hearing with Martinez present, the court found
    Martinez was not eligible for relief and denied the petition.
    Martinez filed a notice of appeal.
    Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    , indicating counsel he has not been able to identify any arguable
    issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for
    error as mandated by Wende. We offered Martinez the opportunity to file his
    own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
    DISCUSSION
    As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
    the court to 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 the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating
    the potential merits of this appeal.
    1. Whether the trial court analyzed the petition under section 1203. 4
    rather than section 1203.42.
    2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Martinez’s petition for
    dismissal under section 1203.4.
    2
    We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
    We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
    Competent counsel has represented Martinez on this appeal.
    DISPOSITION
    The order denying Martinez’s petition to dismiss under section 1203.42
    is affirmed.
    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    AARON, J.
    DATO, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D079004

Filed Date: 1/27/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/27/2022