People v. Rager 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, counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether proper procedures were followed under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers in the process of extraditing Rager from Nevada. 2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Rager’s Marsden motion. 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 Rager on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

3

HUFFMAN, J.*

WE CONCUR:

DO, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 4