People v. Yagao CA4/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 12/14/23 P. v. Yagao 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D081700
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS323169)
MACJHAY YAGAO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed.
Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Macjhay Yagao entered a guilty plea to felony hit and run (Veh. Code,
§ 20001, subd. (a)). In his plea agreement, Yagao stipulated to a sentence of
two years of felony probation.
At the sentencing hearing, the probation officer recommended the court
impose a Fourth Amendment waiver. Defense counsel objected, however
after hearing argument, the trial court imposed a search and seizure waiver
as a condition of probation.
Yagao 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 review the
record for error as mandated by Wende.
We offered Yagao the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he
has not responded.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel has asked the court to review the record for error. To
assist the court with its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was
considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the
trial court erred by imposing a Fourth Amendment waiver as a condition of
probation.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Yagao on this appeal.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
O’ROURKE, J.
3