Full Opinion

Filed 11/12/26 P. v. Tyler CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D086526 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE427914) DAE’QUON TYLER, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jami L. Ferrara, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Dae’quon Tyler appeals from his convictions for hit and run with injury and driving under the influence of drugs causing injury. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Tyler did not file supplemental briefing on his own behalf. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the conviction. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 19, 2024, Tyler drove over 80 miles per hour on the freeway while under the influence of marijuana and Alprazolam (commonly known as Xanax) and collided with another vehicle. Tyler’s girlfriend, M. Mootry, was riding in the front passenger’s seat, and she suffered several injuries including a concussion and sciatic nerve pain. Tyler fled the scene, but officers apprehended him nearby. The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office charged Tyler with hit and run with injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a); count 1) and driving under the influence of drugs causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (f); count 2). A jury found Tyler guilty of both counts. The trial court granted Tyler three years’ formal probation but denied Tyler’s request to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors. Tyler’s timely appeal followed. Tyler’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record for error under Wende and Anders. Counsel identified two potential issues to assist us in our independent review: whether the trial court erred in admitting portions of Mootry’s medical records or by excluding evidence of Mootry’s statements to the paramedics. Tyler has not filed supplemental briefing despite his counsel and this court informing him of his right to do so. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and we considered the issue identified by Tyler’s counsel. We find no 2 arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment. Competent counsel represented Tyler in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. RUBIN, J. WE CONCUR: CASTILLO, Acting P. J. BERMÚDEZ, J. 3