People v. Segovia 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 a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether his plea agreement was barred

by the doctrine of double jeopardy because of the mistrial; (2) whether he was advised of

his constitutional rights and the consequences of pleading guilty, and if he waived his

rights before pleading guilty; and (3) whether he was sentenced in accordance with the

plea agreement. 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.

3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HOLLENHORST

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

McKINSTER J.

4