Filed 2/17/21 P. v. Buggs 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
DAVID B. BUGGS,
Defendant and Appellant.
| D078000
(Super. Ct. No. SCD252423) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jay M. Bloom, Judge. Affirmed.
Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2015, David Buggs pleaded guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187, subd. (a)). He also admitted personal use of a knife in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
In 2019, Buggs filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel for Buggs and received briefing from the prosecution and the defense. After reviewing the briefs, the court found Buggs was the actual killer who personally used a knife to kill the victim. The court denied the petition for resentencing by written order.
Buggs filed a timely notice of appeal.
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 Buggs the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The appeal is from a guilty plea. The change of plea form contains the statement; “unlawfully murdered Norberto Angel Gomez, a human being, without premeditation and deliberation and admit a previous strike. I also admit I personally used a dangerous weapon, a knife, in the commission of the offense.”
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 of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: “Was the court entitled to deny the petition on the basis appellant was ineligible for relief?”
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 Buggs on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
GUERRERO, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
