People v. Salome CA4/1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the offense are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here. (People v. Salome, supra, D074447.)

DISCUSSION

As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel

On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our records in case No. D074447. 2 has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating

the potential merits of this appeal.3 1. Did section 1170.95, subdivision (c) require the trial court to review the record of the case to consider the sufficiency of evidence that Salome had the intent to kill the victim? 2. Did section 1170.95, subdivision (c) require the court to grant relief unless, based on the record of the case, the prosecution could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that Salome had harbored malice as required by amended Penal Code sections 188 and 189? We have independently reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.…