Filed 12/15/17 P. v. Bennett CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ISAIAH ALEXANDER BENNETT,
Defendant and Appellant.
A152081

(Mendocino County
Super. Ct. Nos. SCUK-CRCR-16-85243,
SCUK-CRCR-17-89438)


Counsel for defendant Isaiah Alexander Bennett has submitted a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to independently review the record on appeal to determine whether there are any issues warranting further briefing. Counsel has advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief and he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we find no arguable issues and shall affirm the judgment.
The appeal is from a judgment entered upon a plea of no contest to the violation of Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (c) (sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than perpetrator) in case No. SCUK-CRCR-17-89438 (17-89438), and admission of a violation of probation imposed upon a guilty plea to the violation of Penal Code sections 459 and 460, subdivision (b) (second degree burglary) in case No. SCUK-CRCR-16-85243 (16-85243). The court imposed the aggravated term of three years in case No. 17-89438 plus a consecutive one-third the midterm of eight months in case No. 16-85243, with one year eight months to be served in prison and the remaining two years suspended while on mandatory supervision. Credit for time served was awarded, and mandatory fines and fees were imposed. Victim restitution that had previously been agreed to in case No. 16-85243 was re-ordered and jurisdiction was reserved to determine the amount of restitution to a second victim in the prior case and to the victim in case No. 17-89438. Defendant was ordered to stay away from the teenage victim, who is pregnant with his child. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
Prior to entering his no contest plea, defendant was explicitly advised and acknowledged his understanding of the constitutional rights he was waiving and he waived those rights in a signed plea form and orally before the court. Subsequently, defendant indicated that he wished to withdraw his plea because he felt that his Miranda rights had been violated and his attorney had “lied to him.” The court appointed an attorney from the alternate defender’s office to investigate whether grounds existed to pursue the matter, who later reported that there was “no legal cause for the filing of a motion to withdraw the plea.” Nothing in the record suggests any inadequacy in defendant’s representation throughout.
The record supports the trial court’s selection of the upper term for the violation of Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (c). There are several factors in aggravation, including the victim’s vulnerability and age difference, to which the court referred, and defendant’s unsatisfactory prior performance on probation and commission of the offense while on probation for another offense, cited in the probation report.
Our review of the record discloses no arguable issues warranting further briefing. The judgment is affirmed.

Pollak, Acting P.J.

We concur:

Siggins, J.
Jenkins, J.