People v. Magana CA4/1

── People v. Magana CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Magana CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086599 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV22001746) GIL ALEJANDRO MAGANA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Michael A. Camber, Judge. Affirmed. Heather Monasky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Gil Alejandro Magana entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to two sex offenses and agreed to a stipulated sentence. Magana pleaded guilty to one count of forcible copulation of a child under age 14 (Pen. Code,1 § 287, subd. (c)(2)(B); count 5) and one count of sexual penetration by force of a child under age 14 (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(B); count 6). 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. The remaining counts were dismissed. Magana’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied and he was sentenced to the agreed term of 22 years in prison. Magana filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which was denied by the trial court. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of 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 offered Magana the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. 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 the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Magana’s motion to withdraw his plea. 2. Whether the court erred in denying Magana’s motion to replace appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 218. 3. Whether the court erred in imposing the upper term for count 5. 4. Whether the court erred in ordering Magana to pay restitution. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Magana in this appeal. 2  DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR: MCCONNELL, P. J. KELETY, J. * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3