People v. Rice 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 one potential arguable issue: whether the court should have granted

The factual background is taken from the probation officer’s report.

3 defendant’s request for counsel under section 1405.4 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HOLLENHORST

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

CODRINGTON

J.

Appellate counsel acknowledges that an order granting or denying a motion for DNA testing under section 1405 is not appealable and is subject to review only through a petition of writ of mandate, which is required to be filed within 20 days…