P. v. Branch
Filed 2/28/07 P. v. Branch CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE BRANCH, Defendant and Appellant. | A115467 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 198482-01) |
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant George Branch pled guilty on June 27, 2006, to possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351), with the remaining counts and special allegations dismissed. On August 22, 2006, appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea claiming that he did not understand what he was doing because he was taking medication for migraine headaches at the time of plea. Hearing was held on the motion, at the conclusion of which the motion was denied. Appellant was then sentenced to the agreed-upon low term of two years in state prison.
Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and conclude that there are no arguable issues.
Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. In pleading guilty, appellant admitted the factual basis of the crime. There was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw plea because the transcript of plea establishes, as found by the trial court, a fairly extensive voir dire as to whether or not he understood what was happening in court . . . , which he was able to respond, and to go through a voir dire to understand all of his constitutional rights, and he was able to respond appropriately. There was, as well, no sentencing error as appellant received the agreed-upon sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
