Filed 7/27/17 P. v. Walquist CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEXANDER SCOTT WALQUIST, Defendant and Appellant. D071355 (Super. Ct. No. SCD266513) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed. Alexander Scott Walquist, in pro. per.; Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. After a bench trial, the court convicted Alexander Scott Walquist of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements based on his failure to notify law enforcement of his new residence address. (Pen. Code, §§ 290.013, 290.018, subd. (b).) It found that Walquist had suffered a prison prior under section 667.5, subdivision (b) and a strike prior under section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). The court sentenced Walquist to five years in prison, which it calculated as follows: the middle term of two years for the current offense, doubled under section 667, subdivision (e)(1) for Walquist's strike prior, plus one year for his prison prior. Walquist appeals. His appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Walquist's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Walquist the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Walquist responded by letter, but he also raises no specific issues. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm. FACTS For purposes of this section, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991, 994.) Walquist is required to register as a sex offender. On February 25, 2016, he completed a change of address registration. He listed his residence as the Hotel Occidental, a hotel on Elm Street in San Diego. As part of his registration, Walquist was required to acknowledge the terms of his registration requirement. Nine days later, Walquist moved to the Howard Johnson, a motel on El Cajon Boulevard, also in San Diego. He stayed in a room registered to his mother. Walquist's parole officer, Eric Faith, had also explained the registration requirement to him. Because Walquist wore a GPS tracking device, Faith noticed Walquist's move to the Howard Johnson. He sent Walquist a text message reminding him that he was required to register as a sex offender at his new address. Walquist acknowledged the message, but he did not register. After four weeks at the Howard Johnson, Walquist moved again, to another motel on El Cajon Boulevard. He went to the police to register at his latest address and was arrested for failing to register at the Howard Johnson address. Walquist testified in his own defense. He claimed that he did not understand the registration requirements and that the room at the Howard Johnson was for his mother, not for him. DISCUSSION As we have noted, Walquist's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Instead, Walquist's counsel identified five possible issues under Anders: (1) "Was the evidence sufficient to support the count two conviction of failure to register [a] new address?" (2) "Whether there was sufficient evidence of felony failure to update registration (§ 290.018, subd. (b)) as opposed to misdemeanor failure to update registration (§§ 290.011 and 290.018, subd. (g))?" (3) "[Was there an] [a]buse of discretion in denying [the] motion to dismiss [Walquist's] strike prior?" (4) "Was the evidence sufficient to support the finding on the priors?" (5) "Whether the court's competence finding was proper?" We have independently reviewed the record under Wende, considered the possible issues identified by Walquist's counsel, and reviewed Walquist's letter. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Walquist in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: NARES, J. AARON, J.