People v. Hicks CA4/2

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)

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

the case and two potential arguable issues: 1) whether defendant waived his right to

appeal his suppression motion, even though the court did not advise him of the appellate

waiver; and 2) whether the court erred in denying the motion to suppress, since the police

3 officer unnecessarily prolonged a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion. 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 not done.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

RICHLI

J.

MILLER

J.

4