People v. Joyce CA4/1

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. Counsel also requests the court to grant judicial notice of the proper motion from which this appeal is based. The document was not included in the clerk’s transcript on appeal. We grant the request and take judicial notice of the document. In compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appellate counsel has also identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did the trial court err in denying Joyce’s motion to vacate the fines previously imposed? 2. Did the trial court prejudicially err in failing to appoint counsel before denying the motion?

2 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 Joyce on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Joyce’s motion to vacate fines and costs is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

3