Filed 9/11/26 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086522
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN465370)
v.
VANCE LAMONT SMITH,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Saba Sheibani, Judge. Affirmed.
Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Vance Lamont Smith was charged with several counts of possession,
sales and transportation of controlled substances. Before trial, Smith filed a
motion to replace appointed counsel. The court held a hearing on the motion
and denied the request.
After a jury trial, Smith was found not guilty of the felony offense
charged in count 1, the People dismissed the felony offense alleged in count 2,
the jury returned a guilty verdict on the lesser included misdemeanor offense
for count 3 and convicted on the misdemeanors charged in counts 4 and 5.
The court sentenced Smith to credit for time served with no probation.
Smith 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 offered
Smith the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not
responded to our notice and has not filed a supplemental brief.
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 a possible issue that was considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the convictions as lesser included offenses of
the felony 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 Smith in this appeal.
2
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.
3