People v. Borgen CA4/1

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 of the record, 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 erred by denying Borgen’s final request for self-representation. 2. Whether the court erred in denying Borgen’s request for a sentencing alternative rather than the sentence to which the parties stipulated.

2 We have 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 Borgen on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

3