record for potential error in California

2026(People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1180 ; In re Joyner (1989) 48 Cal.3d 487, 489 ; In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 155 .) An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448 ; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744 ; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112 .) Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we ha

2026We have independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Sanchez. 6 DISPOSITION We affirm the judgment.

2026An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448 ; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744 ; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112 .) Having undertaken an independent examination of the entire record for potential error pursuant to Wende and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defen

2026(People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1180 ; In re Joyner (1989) 48 Cal.3d 487, 489 ; In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 155 .) An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448 ; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744 ; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112 .) Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we ha

2016(People v. Nocelotl (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1096 [the burden is on the defendant to show good cause to withdraw the plea and an appellate court will uphold the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion]; People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 679 [“A defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to appeal from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea . . . .”]; People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188 [the denial of a request for a certificate of probable cause can only be challenged by the filing of

2015(People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188 [The denial of a request for a certificate of probable cause can only be challenged by the filing of a petition for writ of mandate.]; People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1366 [“[A] plea of guilty . . . forecloses an appellate challenge that the plea lacks a factual basis.”]; id. at p. 1372, fn. 14 [Defense counsel’s concession or stipulation to a factual basis for the plea “must be regarded as an admission by defendant.”]; People v. Jones (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1316 [unequivocal evidence of intent to admit prior convictions, su

2016(See People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364-1366 [constitutional validity of plea ensured by trial court’s inquiry of the defendant that the plea is voluntarily and freely 5 The parties stipulated that the factual bases for the plea were contained in the declaration for the arrest warrant; however, that declaration is not contained in the record. 6 made]; id. at p. 1366 [“[A] plea of guilty . . . forecloses an appellate challenge that the plea lacks a factual basis.”]; id. at p. 1371, fn. 14 [defense counsel’s concession or stipulation to a factual basis for the plea “must be regarde

2015(People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188 [The denial of a request for a certificate of probable cause can only be challenged by the filing of a petition for writ of mandate.]; People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1366 [“[A] plea of guilty . . . forecloses an appellate challenge that the plea lacks a factual basis.”]; id. at p. 1372, fn. 14 [Defense counsel’s concession or stipulation to a factual basis for the plea “must be regarded as an admission by defendant.”]; People v. Jones (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1316 [unequivocal evidence of intent to admit prior convictions, su

2026(People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1180 ; In re Joyner (1989) 48 Cal.3d 487, 489 ; In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 155 .) An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448 ; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744 ; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112 .) Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we ha

2026(People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1180 ; In re Joyner (1989) 48 Cal.3d 487, 489 ; In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 155 .) An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448 ; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744 ; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112 .) Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we ha

2025(People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375, 377-378 .) 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 issues.

2014(People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 174 [Informing a defendant that full cooperation might be beneficial and that punishment decisions were not in control of police officers not a promise of leniency rendering confession involuntary]; People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 195 , [Where prosecutor’s statement is “at most, ‘an indirect, brief and mild reference to defendant’s failure to testify as a witness[,]’ [citation][,]” the prosecutor does not suggest the jury should draw inference of guilt from defendant’s testimony, and evidence is overwhelming, any error is harmless], disapprov

2015(People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188 [The denial of a request for a certificate of probable cause can only be challenged by the filing of a petition for writ of mandate.]; People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1366 [“[A] plea of guilty . . . forecloses an appellate challenge that the plea lacks a factual basis.”]; id. at p. 1372, fn. 14 [Defense counsel’s concession or stipulation to a factual basis for the plea “must be regarded as an admission by defendant.”]; People v. Jones (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1316 [unequivocal evidence of intent to admit prior convictions, su

2015(See People v. Jones (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1316 [An on-the-record oral admission of the prior conviction allegation constitutes sufficient evidence to support the prior conviction allegation.]; See also People v. McGuire (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 687, 697, fn. 12 [guilty plea concedes all elements of offense, establishing sufficiency of the evidence of guilt]; People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 304, fn. 6 .) 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2014(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 281 [Duty to appoint two experts triggered only when the defendant informs the court he is not seeking a finding of incompetence]; see People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1392 [Expert’s report that a defendant is competent to stand trial is substantial evidence supporting a court’s reinstatement of criminal proceedings.]; see People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364-1365 [Constitutional validity of plea ensured by trial court’s inquiry of the defendant that the plea is voluntarily and freely made.]; People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432,

2014(People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 174 [Informing a defendant that full cooperation might be beneficial and that punishment decisions were not in control of police officers not a promise of leniency rendering confession involuntary]; People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 195 , [Where prosecutor’s statement is “at most, ‘an indirect, brief and mild reference to defendant’s failure to testify as a witness[,]’ [citation][,]” the prosecutor does not suggest the jury should draw inference of guilt from defendant’s testimony, and evidence is overwhelming, any error is harmless], disapprov

2014(People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 174 [Informing a defendant that full cooperation might be beneficial and that punishment decisions were not in control of police officers not a promise of leniency rendering confession involuntary]; People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 195 , [Where prosecutor’s statement is “at most, ‘an indirect, brief and mild reference to defendant’s failure to testify as a witness[,]’ [citation][,]” the prosecutor does not suggest the jury should draw inference of guilt from defendant’s testimony, and evidence is overwhelming, any error is harmless], disapprov

2014(People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 652 [in choosing a restraint, a defendant cannot complain of prejudice from the jury’s observation of the chosen restraint]; People v. Wash (1993) 6 Cal.4th 215, 262-263 [prosecutor’s comment upon defendant’s failure to adduce material evidence or call logical witnesses not improper]; People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 813 [one legally sufficient aggravating factor justifies imposition of the upper term]; People v. Crockett (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 258, 263 [court documents, and reasonable inferences made therefrom, may provide substantial evidence a d

2014(People v. Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 131, 147 [constitutional validity of plea reviewed under totality of the circumstances]; People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 68-69 [appellate court must show deference to trial court’s determination of appropriate conditions of probation such as imposition of alcohol probation term even in case where alcohol was not directly implicated in crime].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2014(People v. Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 131, 147 [Constitutional validity of plea reviewed under the totality of the circumstances.]; See People v. Tigner (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 430, 435 [Failure of court to take adequate factual basis for plea subject to harmless error where sufficient documentary information in the record so provides.]; People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188 [The denial of a request for certificate of probable cause can only be challenged by petition for writ of mandate.].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2025(People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26, 42 [“trial courts have discretion regarding the formalities they follow and the evidence they consider at such hearings”]; cf. also People v. Crisler (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1503, 1509 [indicating victim expenses to attend court hearings would be compensable, including travel costs and loss of wages due to time spent as a witness].) Pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 and the principles identified in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.

2025(People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26, 42 [“trial courts have discretion regarding the formalities they follow and the evidence they consider at such hearings”]; cf. also People v. Crisler (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1503, 1509 [indicating victim expenses to attend court hearings would be compensable, including travel costs and loss of wages due to time spent as a witness].) Pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 and the principles identified in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.

2016(People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 848 ; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 732 ; People v. Cruz (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 427, 433 .) Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

2014(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 281 [Duty to appoint two experts triggered only when the defendant informs the court he is not seeking a finding of incompetence]; see People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1392 [Expert’s report that a defendant is competent to stand trial is substantial evidence supporting a court’s reinstatement of criminal proceedings.]; see People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1364-1365 [Constitutional validity of plea ensured by trial court’s inquiry of the defendant that the plea is voluntarily and freely made.]; People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432,

2016(People v. Nocelotl (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1096 [the burden is on the defendant to show good cause to withdraw the plea and an appellate court will uphold the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion]; People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 679 [“A defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to appeal from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea . . . .”]; People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188 [the denial of a request for a certificate of probable cause can only be challenged by the filing of

2013We have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find none. 2 The validity of appellant’s no contest plea to reckless evasion is not at issue because he failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 677 .) That plea supported the revocation of his probation in the two earlier theft cases, which contained probation conditions requiring that he obey all laws.

2026(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 ; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126 .) In particular, section 1172.1, subdivision (c), expressly provides that a defendant “is not entitled” to ask for resentencing relief “under this section.” Indeed, the statute states: “If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond.” (Ibid.) The statute does provide that a court may, in certain instances in its discretion, initiate recall and resentencing “on its own motion.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1); see generally People v. Johnson (2022) 12 Cal.5th

2025(People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26, 42 [“trial courts have discretion regarding the formalities they follow and the evidence they consider at such hearings”]; cf. also People v. Crisler (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1503, 1509 [indicating victim expenses to attend court hearings would be compensable, including travel costs and loss of wages due to time spent as a witness].) Pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 and the principles identified in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.

2025(People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26, 42 [“trial courts have discretion regarding the formalities they follow and the evidence they consider at such hearings”]; cf. also People v. Crisler (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1503, 1509 [indicating victim expenses to attend court hearings would be compensable, including travel costs and loss of wages due to time spent as a witness].) Pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 and the principles identified in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.

2024(See People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 147-148 [Defendant failed to show that transcription errors violated his rights or prejudiced him.].) 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 issues.

2023(Ibid.; Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700 [“When an issue is unsupported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed abandoned and discussion by the reviewing court is unnecessary”]; Ochoa v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1488, fn. 3 [contention was deemed waived because “[a]ppellant did not formulate a coherent legal argument nor did she cite any supporting authority”]; Colores v. Board of Trustees (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1301, fn. 2 [“The dearth of true legal analysis in [appellant’s] appellate briefs amount

2023(Ibid.; Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700 [“When an issue is unsupported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed abandoned and discussion by the reviewing court is unnecessary”]; Ochoa v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1488, fn. 3 [contention was deemed waived because “[a]ppellant did not formulate a coherent legal argument nor did she cite any supporting authority”]; Colores v. Board of Trustees (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1301, fn. 2 [“The dearth of true legal analysis in [appellant’s] appellate briefs amount

2023(Ibid.; Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700 [“When an issue is unsupported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed abandoned and discussion by the reviewing court is unnecessary”]; Ochoa v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1488, fn. 3 [contention was deemed waived because “[a]ppellant did not formulate a coherent legal argument nor did she cite any supporting authority”]; Colores v. Board of Trustees (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1301, fn. 2 [“The dearth of true legal analysis in [appellant’s] appellate briefs amount