People v. Worthen CA2/7

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Worthen on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On June 10, 2015 we advised Worthen he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wanted us to consider. We have not received a response. With respect to potential sentencing or post-plea issues that do not challenge the validity of the plea (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1)), we have examined the record and are satisfied appellate counsel for Worthen has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and there are no arguable issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

SEGAL, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J. BECKLOFF, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3