P. v. Orji
We appointed counsel to represent Okezie Augustus Orji on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. Orji was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court in conducting its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel listed as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Orji of theft; and (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding Orji had suffered three prior theft convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 666.[1]
We have reviewed the information provided by counsel and have independently examined the record. We found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Orji