NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

McKINSTER, J.

On April 11, 2016, in a plea to the court, defendant pled guilty to elder abuse by means likely to cause great bodily injury or death (count 1; Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1))1 and an unlawful attempt to deter an officer in the execution of the officer's duties (count 2; § 69). In accordance with its indicated sentence, the court granted defendant 36 months' probation.

After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court abused its discretion in finding defendant competent to stand trial. We affirm.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 17, 2015, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with elder abuse by means likely to cause great bodily injury or death (count 1; § 368, subd. (b)(1)) and the unlawful attempt to deter an officer in the execution of the officer's duties (count 2; § 69). On December 31, 2015, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant's mental competency to stand for trial. The court suspended proceedings and appointed two doctors to evaluate defendant.

In a report filed January 21, 2016, Dr. Ngoc-Tram Vo concluded defendant was competent to stand trial. In a report filed February 4, 2016, Dr. Gene N. Berg concluded defendant was competent to stand trial. The court found defendant competent to stand trial.

On April 11, 2016, defendant pled guilty as recounted above.2 On May 27, 2016, a probation officer filed a first violation of probation alleging defendant failed to report within two days of his release from jail and failed to report to a subsequently scheduled appointment. As of May 20, 2016, defendant's whereabouts were unknown.

On May 27, 2016, the court revoked defendant's probation and issued a warrant for his arrest. On June 7, 2016, defendant denied a violation of his probation; the court set the matter for a hearing on June 29, 2016.

On June 8, 2016, defense counsel filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of the plea. Defense counsel requested issuance of a certificate of probable cause noting, "Defendant requests appeal after guilty plea." The court denied the request.

II. DISCUSSION

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

RAMIREZ, P. J. and HOLLENHORST, J., concurs.