Filed 8/19/26 P. v. Mazzarino 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
D087137
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. FWV23001881)
v.
NICHOLAS MAZZARINO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Shannon Faherty, Judge. Affirmed.
Nicholas Mazzarino, in pro. per., and Richard L. Fitzer, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Nicholas Mazzarino entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated
sentence. He pleaded no contest to two counts of child abuse (Pen. Code,
§ 273a, subd (a)) and admitted he caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.7,
subd. (e)). The parties agreed the court would impose the stipulated term of
14 years four months in prison.
While the case was pending sentence, Mazzarino moved to set aside the
no contest plea. The trial court denied the motion and imposed the stipulated
prison sentence.
Mazzarino filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of
probable cause.
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 advised Mazzarino he could file his own brief on appeal. He has
filed a letter in which he complains about his dealings with appellate counsel.
He does not raise any 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
(Anders) counsel has identified possible issues that were considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court abused its
discretion by denying Mazzarino’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea,
and whether the court had to amend the abstract of judgment.
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 Mazzarino in this appeal.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, 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