Court Opinion

ID: 9957669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 19:02:41.33669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:33.759001
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/4/24 P. v. Bermingham 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D082366

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCN434259)

 RYAN BERMINGHAM,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Brad A. Weinreb, Judge. Affirmed.
         Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         Ryan Bermingham entered into a plea agreement under which he

pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245,
subd. (a)(1)) and driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh.

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
specified.
Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). He also admitted the enhancement under
section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
      The parties stipulated Bermingham would be sentenced to a
determinate term of three years eight months in prison.
      Prior to sentencing Bermingham brought a motion to replace counsel.
(See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court held a hearing and
denied the motion. The court also denied Bermingham’s motion to withdraw
his guilty pleas. Bermingham was sentenced to the stipulated term of three
years eight months in prison.
      Bermingham filed a timely notice of appeal. The court issued a
certificate of probable cause.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered
Bermingham the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not
responded.
      The court did not conduct any evidentiary hearings on the facts of the
offenses in light of the guilty pleas. Accordingly, we will not include a
statement of facts in this opinion.
                                   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 listed the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal.
      1. Whether the court erred in denying the Marsden motion.

                                        2
      2. Whether there was any evidence that Bermingham was coerced in
the guilty plea.
      3. Whether the terms for counts 1 and 3 should have been run
concurrently and stayed under section 654.
      We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We
have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent
counsel has represented Bermingham on this appeal.
                              DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                             HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                     3