People v. James CA4/1
Opinion
Opinion
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In his change of plea, James stated he attempted to possess a banned synthetic cannabinoid and did the things that are specified in the charges and agreed he had a prior strike.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
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, counsel has identified four possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether James’s admission of guilt was to a legal impossibility. 2. Whether counsel’s stipulation furnished a factual basis for the plea. 3. Whether there are any consequences from the Legislature’s failure to pass Assembly Bill No. 2846 that should have been considered. 4. Whether the court erred in sentencing James. We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented James on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.