Filed 6/22/26 P. v. Searcy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086689
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD302513)
v.
DAMON SEARCY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.
Damon Searcy, in pro. per., and Robert L. Hernandez, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Damon Searcy was charged with five counts of robbery (Pen. Code,
§ 211). Count 2 was later amended to charge assault with force likely to
cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)).
Searcy requested mental health diversion under Penal Code Section
1001.22. The court found Searcy eligible for mental health diversion but
found him to be otherwise unsuitable. Thereafter, Searcy pleaded guilty to
four counts of robbery, one count of assault, and admitted a strike prior
(§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
The court sentenced Searcy to a determinate term of 14 years in prison.
Searcy filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of
probable cause, which request was denied.
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 Searcy he could file his own brief on appeal. He has
responded by filing a supplemental brief. Searcy raises two principal
arguments. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying
appellant’s request for a certificate of probable cause. Searcy also argues the
court erred in finding him unsuitable for mental health diversion.
Based on the record in this appeal Searcy has not presented any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
This appeal is from a guilty plea without a certificate of probable cause
and the facts of the various offenses are not probative of any issue raised by
this appeal. Accordingly, we will omit a statement of facts.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, 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 (1067) 386 U. S. 738 (Anders),
counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating
the potential merits of this appeal: whether the appellant’s plea was
knowing and voluntary, and whether appellant knew and understood he was
admitting new strike offenses.
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 Searcy in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, 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.