STATEMENT OF FACTS

The convictions in each case are based on guilty pleas and not on evidentiary hearings. In case No. SCE396969, Swain admitted he made a criminal threat and that he used a knife in the commission of the offense. In case No. SCE399200, he attempted to dissuade a witness from testifying in case No. SCE396969.

2

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 has identified the following possible issues that have been considered in evaluating the potential merits of these appeals. 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Swain’s motion for pretrial mental health diversion. 2. Whether the sentence imposed, including the selection of the upper term was statutorily correct. In his submission, Swain discusses matters outside the record on appeal in this case. He offers a “Certificate of Disability” which he has received from a postconviction school program in which he has been involved. Swain has also filed a copy of a 2021 phycological evaluation he wishes us to consider. We decline Swain’s request to take “new evidence” on appeal. The parties agreed and the court accepted the fact that Swain had mental health issues. The motion for mental health diversion was denied because there was no evidence to establish that Swain’s mental health issues had anything to do with committing the crimes in these cases. Swain’s supplemental brief has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Swain on this appeal.

3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

4