Filed 10/22/26 P. v. Haney 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086529
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCE426988
v.
CHRISTOPHER HANEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; and
Christopher Haney, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Christopher Haney of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)
Haney admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and a serious felony prior
conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)).
The court sentenced Haney to three years for the robbery, doubled
because of the strike prior for a total term of six years.
Haney filed a timely notice of appeal
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 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 advised Haney that he could
file his own brief on appeal. Haney has responded by filing a supplemental
brief.
In his brief, Haney contends the question of sufficiency of the evidence
presents arguable issues for reversal on appeal. The arguments he presents
in his brief address credibility and not legal sufficiency of testimony the jury
believed to be true. On this record, challenging the sufficiency on the
grounds proposed does not raise any arguable issues 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,
counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating
the potential merits of this appeal.
1. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support a robbery
conviction.
2. Whether the court erred by denying the defense motion to exclude
evidence of Haney’s 2014 prior felony conviction.
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 Haney in this appeal.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
CASTILLO, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, 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