People v. Harris CA4/1

Filed 1/9/23 P. v. Harris 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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, D080334
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD284682-01)
NAOMI RENEE HARRIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Naomi Renee Harris was charged with three counts of child
endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a),1 counts 1–3), disobeying a court
1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4), count 4), and child cruelty (§ 273a, subd. (b),
count 5). The information filed against Harris also alleged she had a prior
strike conviction under section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). The charges
arose from allegations that Harris left her two young children, ages five years
old and just under six months old, home alone for extended periods of time
over the course of several days. The home was also alleged to be unsafe and
unsanitary.
Thereafter, Harris entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to counts 1
and 2 as misdemeanors under section 17, subdivision (b). The trial court
granted Harris probation for one year and awarded her 100 days of actual
custody credits and 100 days of conduct credits. The trial court also imposed
a $250 fine, which it deemed satisfied by Harris’s custody credits. In
addition, the court entered a criminal protective order granting the
dependency court authority to control Harris’s visitation rights with the
children.
Harris appealed from the judgment.2
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he identified no reasonably arguable
issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record as
mandated by Wende. We offered Harris the opportunity to file her own brief
on appeal, but she did not respond.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed
counsel identified the following possible issue to assist this court in our
2 On advice of Harris’s appointed counsel, the appeal was initially
dismissed as untimely and for lack of jurisdiction. After additional
information was presented by counsel, the appeal was reinstated and deemed
timely under the authority of In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72.
2
review of the record: Whether the trial court established an adequate factual
basis when it accepted Harris’s guilty pleas. Our independent review of the
record as mandated by Wende and Anders, including the possible issue
referred to by counsel, disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Competent counsel represented Harris on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
3