People v. Lamb CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.

Counsel presents no argument for reversal of the order denying Lamb's motion for

modification of his sentence, but counsel asks this court to review the record for error as

mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel raises no possible, but not

arguable, issues. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)

We take judicial notice of this court's opinion in Lamb I. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).) 3 On February 17, 2015, we granted Lamb permission to file a brief on his own

behalf. He has not responded.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and

Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate

issue. Lamb forfeited his claim of sentencing error by failing to object at his 2007

sentencing to the restitution fine order and the victim restitution order he now challenges

in this appeal. (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 [a constitutional right,

or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal cases by the failure to make

timely…