People v. Riley CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and

proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review

the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), he listed as possible but not

arguable issues, whether (1) the notice of appeal could be construed to address all three

cases, and (2) the court erred when it failed to specify the basis for each fine or fee and

conduct a hearing on Riley's ability to pay. We granted Riley permission to file a brief

on his own behalf. He has not responded.

3 Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by

counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Riley on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MCINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

BENKE, J.

4