INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Daniel Michael Treglia appeals the judgment, after he

entered a plea agreement and pled no contest to one count of attempted possession of a

dirk or dagger. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by felony complaint with carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen.

Code,1 § 21310, count 1), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,

§ 11377, subd. (a), count 2), and possession of an injection device (Health & Saf. Code,

§ 11364, subd. (a), count 3). The information also alleged that he had one prior strike

conviction. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i).)

On June 17, 2025, defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement and pled no

contest to an added count of attempted possession of a dirk or dagger (§§ 664/21310,

count 4); he also admitted the prior strike allegation. In exchange, the court sentenced

him to the low term of 8 months in state prison, doubled pursuant to the prior strike. The

People moved to dismiss the remaining counts, and the court granted the motion.

On August 20, 2025, defendant filed a handwritten notice of appeal, in propria

persona, challenging his sentence as illegal.

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of

the case and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether the court imposed an illegal

sentence when it sentenced defendant to 16 months in state prison for a conviction of

attempted possession of a dirk or dagger, with a prior strike; (2) whether the court

imposed an illegal sentence in excess of the statutory maximum; and (3) whether defense

counsel was ineffective for misadvising defendant as to the statutory maximum penalty

for the charge against him. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of

the entire record.

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

he has done. In a handwritten brief, defendant argues that his sentence should not have

exceeded one year in state prison, under the terms of section 21310. We conclude the

court properly sentenced him pursuant to the plea agreement.

Section 21310 provides that “any person in this state who carries concealed upon

the person any dirk or dagger is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not

exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.”

Section 1170, subdivision (h)(1) provides: “a felony punishable pursuant to this

subdivision where the term is not specified in the underlying offense shall be punishable

by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years.” Here,

since defendant pled no contest to attempted possession of a dirk or dagger

(§§ 664/21310), he was subject to half of the prescribed term. (§ 664, subd. (a).) Thus,

in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced him to the low

3 term of eight months, and that term was doubled to 16 months because of the prior strike

conviction. (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).2

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 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 THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

McKINSTER J.

2 As defendant acknowledges, he was required to serve the term in state prison, rather than county jail. (§§ 1170, subd. (h)(3), 1192.7, subd. (c)(31), 245, subd. (a)(2)/12022.7.)

4