Filed 2/3/22 P. v. Salzman CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARK SALZMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D078914

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD279564)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

In 2019, Mark Salzman was charged with a number of offenses arising 

from alleged drunk driving causing injury. In March 2019, a preliminary 

hearing was held and Salzman was bound over for trial. Thereafter, a 

number of continuances were granted, over Salzman’s objections, based on 

court closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
2

In May 2020, the court found good cause to continue the trial date 

because of the pandemic. The court granted another continuance in July 

2020. 

In August 2020, Salzman brought a motion to dismiss for denial of a 

speedy trial. The court held a hearing and considered the various emergency 

orders that had been issued by the Chief Justice because of issues arising 

from the pandemic. The court denied the motion to dismiss under Penal 

Code section 1382. 

In January 2021, Salzman pleaded guilty to one count of driving under 

the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and 

admitted personally inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, 

subd. (c)(8)). Salzman also admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, § 667, 

subds. (b)-(i)). The court sentenced Salzman to the midterm of two years, 

doubled because of the strike prior. Based upon the accumulated custody 

credits, the court ordered Salzman’s immediate release from custody and 

ordered him to report to parole. 

Salzman filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of 

probable cause. 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating that counsel has not been able to identify 

any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review 

the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Salzman the 

opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.1

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 of 

1 The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to the resolution of 

this appeal.
3

the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 

(Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issue that was 

considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the 

trial court erroneously denied Salzman’s motion to dismiss the case under 

Penal Code section 1382.

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 Salzman on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

GUERRERO, J.