Filed 9/22/26 P. v. Hernandez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087127
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD307143)
v.
LENIRA HERNANDEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.
Zach A. Brooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Lenira Hernandez entered into a plea agreement. She agreed to plead
guilty to residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459 and 460) and guilty of
possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). The parties agreed
Hernandez would receive a two-year sentence, suspended pending formal
probation. The parties agreed Hernandez would receive a term of 365 days
as a condition of probation.
Hernandez was sentenced consistently with the terms of the plea
agreement.
Hernandez filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the guidelines set by 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 as mandated by Wende. We offered
Hernandez the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not
responded or attempted to file a supplemental brief.
These convictions are from a negotiated plea. We will not include a
statement of facts in this opinion.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record. To assist the court in its review
and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has
identified four possible issues which were considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal.
1. Whether the court abused its discretion in imposing gang conditions
of probation.
2. Whether there was sufficient nexus between the appellant’s criminal
convictions and the gang conditions to permit the trial court’s
imposition of such probation conditions.
3. Was appellant’s plea constitutionally valid?
4. Did the trial court properly find a valid factual basis for the
appellant’s guilty plea?
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 Hernandez in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, 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.