People v. Bender CA4/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/24/24 P. v. Bender 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D082683
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD293631)
LEE WILLIS BENDER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed.
Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment based on a guilty plea with a
stipulated sentence. The appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable
cause. (Pen. Code,1 § 1237.5.)
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Lee Willis Bender pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter (§ 192)
and admitted the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Bender also
admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
Bender was sentenced to the stipulated term of 23 years in prison
consisting of the upper term of 11 years for involuntary manslaughter,
doubled for the strike prior, plus one year for the deadly weapon.
Bender 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 advised Bender he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not
responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This appeal arises from a guilty plea. Bender admitted he unlawfully
killed the victim using a knife. He also admitted a strike prior and that his
performance on probation was not satisfactory.
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 of
the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738(Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue for the court’s consideration:
Whether the court properly sentenced Bender in accordance with the plea
agreement.
We have 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 Bender on this appeal.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
3