Court Opinion

ID: 9690308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:04:14.534628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:02.142282
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/24/23 P. v. Carre 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D081329

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD287138)

CHRISTOPHER J. CARRE,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Kenneth K. So, Judge. Affirmed.
         Christopher Carre, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         Christopher Carre entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded

guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1);
count 1) and corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 2). Carre

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
admitted the use of a deadly weapon (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). The parties
agreed Carre would be granted probation on various conditions.
      At sentencing, the court imposed a four-year prison term but suspended
the execution and granted Carre probation. The remaining counts and
allegations were dismissed.
      Carre filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of
probable cause (§ 1237.5). The request for a certificate of probable cause was

denied.2
      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 review the
record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Carre the opportunity to
file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief,
which we will discuss later in this opinion.
      In his change of plea, Carre admitted assaulting the victim with a
weapon (to wit: a brick) and that he inflicted traumatic injury.
                                DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently 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 identified the following possible issue that was

2     With regard to the denial of the certificate of probable cause this court
entered the following order: “Appellant’s request for a certificate of probable
cause was denied and, as part of the plea, appellant waived issues relating to
any suppression motion denials, any prior strike convictions, and the
stipulated sentence. The issues on appeal are thus limited to matters
occurring after the plea that do not involve prior strike convictions and the
stipulated sentence, other than as set forth in Penal Code section 1016.8.”
                                       2
considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Was Carre
sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement?
      We have considered Carre’s supplemental brief and conclude it does not
identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. His brief is an attack on
the guilty plea and in particular a criticism of trial counsel’s representation.
In the absence of a certificate of probable cause Carre cannot challenge the
plea on direct appeal. Carre’s complaints will have to be aired in a petition
for habeas corpus if at all. There is nothing in the supplemental brief that
raises any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
      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 Carre on this appeal.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                        HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

CASTILLO, J.

RUBIN, J.

                                        3