Full Opinion

Filed 10/28/26 P. v. Hatter CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086975 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCF008844 v. CLAUDELL HATTER, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No Appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2025, Claudell Hatter, was charged with possession of a controlled substance in a prison facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a)). He pleaded no contest to the single count. He was sentenced to the middle term of 3 years to be served concurrently with the existing sentence of life without parole. Hatter requested the court to stay the restitution fine. The court denied the request. Hatter filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 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 Hatter he could file his own brief on appeal. Hatter has not attempted to file his own brief. DISCUSSION As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Was Hatter’s no contest plea knowing and voluntary. 2. Did the court err in denying Hatter’s request to stay the minimum, restitution fine? We have independently reviewed the record for error. Our review did not discover any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Hatter in this appeal. 2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: CASTILLO, Acting P. J. RUBIN, J. 3