Filed 7/24/26 P. v. George 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086643
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCE421583)
v.
JOSHUA ALAN GEORGE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County.
Frank L. Birchak, Judge. Affirmed.
Joshua Alan George, in pro. per., and Anna M. Jauregui-Law, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Joshua Alan George was charged with one count of assault with force
likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The
information also alleged four prior felony convictions and a prior strike. No
aggravating circumstances were alleged.
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
George entered into a plea agreement. He pleaded guilty to the assault
charge and would receive a four-year upper term. The execution of sentence
would be stayed to permit George to request drug court. If he was not
accepted into drug court the sentence could be executed. George also waived
the right to appeal from any stipulated sentence. George was not accepted
into drug court. George was referred to Behavioral Health Court, but he was
not accepted. He was sentenced to prison for four years.
George filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of 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
notified George that he could file his own brief on appeal. George has
responded with a short letter and what appears to be material from a petition
for habeas corpus. George does not make clear what issues he thinks the
court should address. It appears George’s argument is that the
circumstances of this case have been blown “out of proportion” and that he
has served enough time in custody. The supplemental brief does not identify
any arguable issues in this record for reversal on appeal
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 three possible issues which were considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
Did the trial court comply with the plea agreement?
2
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing George to the
upper term instead of the middle term for the assault?
Was the record of prior convictions sufficient to support an upper term
sentence?
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented George in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
*
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
3