Court Opinion

ID: 9911884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 23:02:35.254204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:51.628140
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/20/23 P. v. Waithe CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E081784

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. BAF2300668)

 KWAMAE MARQUIS WAITHE,                                                  OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Joshlyn R. Pulliam,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Belinda Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                             STATEMENT OF THE CASE

       Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, on July 13, 2023, defendant and appellant

Kwamae Marquis Waithe pled guilty to two counts of robbery under Penal Code1 section

211 (counts 1 & 2). Moreover, as to count 1, defendant admitted a firearm enhancement

under section 12022.5, subdivision (a). Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to

a term of eight years in state prison as follows: the upper term of five years on count 1,

plus three years on the firearm enhancement to run consecutive to count 1, and the

midterm of three years on count 2 to run concurrently to count 1. The trial court then

dismissed the remaining counts, struck the remaining enhancements, ordered restitution,

fines and fees, and awarded 18 days of custody credit.

       On July 19, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of his

plea and requested that the court issue a certificate of probable cause. The trial court

granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.

                               STATEMENT OF FACTS

       Defendant admitted that on June 26, 2022, he robbed Sterling S., and that during

the robbery, defendant personally used a firearm. Defendant also admitted that on June

25, 2022, he robbed Alvin L. At the time of the commission of the crimes, defendant was

19 years old.

       1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

                                              2
                                        DISCUSSION

       After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of

the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and has requested this

court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified

the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error:

       1.     “Does the appellate record show that defendant had a concussion and was

not able to understand the nature and circumstances of the plea?”

       2.     “Does the appellate record show that the trial counsel took matters into her

own hands and did not listen to appellant?”

       After defense counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, we offered defendant

an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

       Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s

attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue

exists. (Id. at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

                                               3
                                      DISPOSITION

     The judgment is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                    MILLER
                                                             Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
                                 J.

FIELDS
                                 J.

                                           4