People v. Wright CA4/1

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 the court abused its discretion in failing to strike the “strike priors” to avoid a life sentence. 2. Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to strike all of the serious felony priors.

2 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 Wright on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

RUBIN, J.

3