People v. Henry CA4/1

statement of the case and statement of facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for error. Counsel identifies the following potential issues to assist the court in its review: (1) “[w]hether the court erred in denying the defense motion for mistrial due to belated discovery”; (2) “[w]hether CALCRIM No. 2181 required a unanimity instruction”; and (3) “[w]hether the trial court abused

its discretion in denying the defense Romero[2] motion to strike a prior conviction.” (Boldface omitted.) We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders and considered the potential issues identified by Henry’s counsel. We find no arguable issue that would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. Competent counsel has represented Henry in this appeal.

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

DO, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

RUBIN, J.

4