People v. Mendoza CA4/2

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth

statements of the case and facts. Counsel considered two issues: (1) whether defendant's

trial counsel failed to provide effective assistance by not moving to suppress defendant’s

statements on the ground of insufficient compliance with the warning requirements of

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, and (ii) whether defendant's trial counsel failed

to provide effective assistance by not objecting to a lack of foundation for playing a Ring

camera surveillance video.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (200) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

MILLER

J.

RAPHAEL

J.

3