P.

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

It appears that the trial court intended to strike defendant’s prior 1992 burglary conviction. However, later in taking the plea and admission, defendant admitted to having suffered the prior 1992 burglary conviction as a strike, and the trial court stated that it would be striking the “first special prior offense,” which was the 1998 robbery conviction. For the purposes of this appeal, the record is clear that the trial court intended to sentence defendant as a one-striker, and we do not believe a remand is necessary.

3 the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court

conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he

has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we

have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable…