People v. Rayman

HUFFMAN, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego, No. SCD296811 Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.

Lara Gressley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

HUFFMAN, J.

Timothy Rayman entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and being a felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). Rayman also admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The parties stipulated that Rayman would be sentenced to a five-year, four-month prison sentence. Rayman requested and received a hearing on his request to substitute counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). His request to change counsel was denied as was his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Rayman 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 Rayman the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In his change of plea, Rayman stated: "On or about November 10, 2022, I did commit an assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and I also possessed ammunition after being prohibited from doing so based on a prior conviction. I also admit my strike prior conviction from 12/3/18 for PC245(a)(1)."

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 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:

1. Whether trial counsel's failure to file a motion to withdraw Rayman's guilty plea was ineffective assistance of counsel.

2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Marsden motion.

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 Rayman on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., RUBIN, J.