Filed 8/31/26 P. v. Young 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
D087012
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. Nos. CN464852,
v. CN468058 & CN269253)
TAMMIE R. YOUNG,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Kelly C. Mok, Judge. Affirmed.
Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Tammie R. Young was arrested and charged with various drug offenses
in three different cases, including three counts of possession of a controlled
substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) and three counts of possession of
drug paraphernalia (§ 11364).
The court consolidated the cases and conducted a jury trial. It granted
a motion to exclude Young’s March 19, 2025 statements but found that the
subsequent statements were admissible. The jury found Young guilty of all
six counts. The court imposed 90 days in custody, which it stayed pending
completion of probation. The same terms were ordered for each of the six
counts.
Young 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 advised Young that she could file her own brief on appeal, but
Young has not responded to the court’s notice.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has asked 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 appears to believe one can comply with the Anders rule by including
an expanded statement of facts in the briefs, seeking to avoid the
requirement that counsel advise the court as to what counsel thinks is a
possible issue.
Counsel has an obligation to comply with Anders. We do not know
what motivates counsel to try to avoid identifying possible beneficial issues.
We do not approve the steps taken here.
While we would have preferred counsel to specify what possible issues
were considered under Anders, the case is straight forward. We are satisfied
we can discern whether appellant has been adequately protected on this
record.
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 Young in this appeal.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
O’ROURKE, 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