Filed 7/31/26 P. v. Harper 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086897

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN308840)

v.

JULIE E. HARPER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Blaine K. Bowman, Judge. Affirmed.
Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2012, Julie E. Harper was charged with the murder of her husband.
She remained out of custody through two jury trials. She was convicted of
second degree murder in 2015 and remanded into custody at that time.
 Harper was sentenced to prison for 15 years to life plus 25 years to life
for the firearm enhancement under Penal Code1 section 12022.53, subdivision
(d) plus 10 years for the personal use of a firearm under section 12022.5,
subdivision (a), however, the punishment for the enhancement was stayed.
In a nonpublished opinion, People v. Harper, D069632 (Jan. 5, 2018),
we affirmed the conviction and the true finding on the enhancement under
section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The case was then remanded to the trial
court for resentencing.
After the resentencing hearing, the court reduced the sentence for the
personal use of a firearm to four years and modified the fines and fees that
were imposed. The court found Harper was not entitled to custody credits for
the time she was out of custody pending trial under section 1203.018,
subdivisions (d)(1) and (3).
Harper filed a timely notice of appeal,
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 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
Harper the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not
responded to our notice.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
We have discussed the facts of the offense in our opinion in case
No. D069632. We will not repeat them here.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal:
Whether the trial court erred in failing to award custody credits for the
time Harper was out of custody pending trial.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing and staying a
four-year mid-term sentence for the enhancement under section 12022.5,
subdivision (a).
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 Harper in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

DATO, 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