Filed 6/5/14 P. v. Ho CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. VU LINH HO, Defendant and Appellant. D064618

(Super. Ct. No. SCD247403)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia Mary Ihara, unde r appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I. INTRODUCTION Vu Linh Ho pled gu ilty to one count of unlawfully taking and driv ing a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) and admitted having su ffered a prior strike allegation. In conformance with the stipulated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Ho to a term of four years in state prison. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brie f presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the re cord for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ) and Wende , we affirm.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND In April 2013, the People filed a comp laint against Ho alleging one count of unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) and one count of buying/concealing/withholding and/or aiding in concealing/selling/ withholding a motor vehicle, in violation of Penal Code 1 section 496, subdivision (d). The People further alleged that Ho had suffered six prior felo ny convictions (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)), four

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.3 prison priors (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668), and one strike prio r (§§ 667, subd.(b)-(i), 668 & 1170.12). The case was set for a jury trial. On the first day of trial, just prior to the commencement of voir dire, Ho waived his right to a jury trial on the allegations of his prior convictions and prison sentences. Ho so ught to represent himself at trial, pursuant the authority of Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 ( Faretta ), and presented the
court with a Lopez 2 waiver. The trial court denied Ho's request to represent himself. Ho then requested a Marsden 3 hearing, seeking a change of attorney. The court held a Marsden hearing, and denied Ho's request fo r appointment of a different attorney. Voir dire commenced. After a lunch brea k, Ho indicated that he had decided to enter a change of plea. The pr ospective jurors were excused. Ho thereafter pled guilty to count 1, felony vehicle theft, and admitted having suffered a prior strike conviction. In excha nge, the parties agreed to a sentence of four years in state prison. Ho was informed, both orally and in wr iting, that as a result of his prior strike conviction, he would be requi red to serve 80 per cent of the four-year sentence. The court dismissed the remaining count and struck the prison prior and felony prior conviction allegations.

2 People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 568, 571.
3 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 118, 124.4 As factual support for his plea, Ho ad mitted that he "drove a car without the permission of the owner with th e intent to deprive [the] owne r of said vehicle" and that he "had a prior strike." On the day of his scheduled sentencing hearing, Ho requested a continuance of sentencing. The trial court denied the reque st for a continuance and sentenced Ho in accordance with th e plea agreement. Ho filed a timely notice of appeal.
III. DISCUSSION Appointed appellate counsel has f iled a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presen ted no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders , supra , 386 U.S. 738, counsel identifie d the following as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) "Is there [a] suffici ent factual basis to support the vehicle theft and the finding of a prior strike? Is this issue app ealable without a certificate of probable cause?" (2) "Did the trial court err when it denied appellant's Faretta motion to represent himself on the first day of trial? . . . Is this issue appealable without a certificate of probable cause?" (Fn. omitted.) (3) "Did the trial court err when it denied appellant's pre-plea Marsden motion? . . . Is this issue appealable without a certificate of probable cause?"5 (4) "Did the trial court err when it denied appellant's request for a continuance of sentencing?" (5) "Was appellant expressly inform ed that by pleading to a strike, he would get reduced credits?" After this court received counsel's brief, we provided Ho with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. Ho did not file a supplemental brief. A review of the record pursuant to Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders , supra , 386 U.S. 738, including the issues s uggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Ho has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
IV. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, Acting P. J.

McINTYRE, J.