P. v. Cleenput
Filed 4/6/07 P. v. Cleenput 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM J. CLEENPUT, Defendant and Appellant. | D049308 (Super. Ct. No. SCE260132) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge. Affirmed.
William J. Cleenput entered a negotiated guilty plea to unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a); People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595.) The court denied a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Cleenput on three years' probation including a condition he serve 365 days in custody. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576), the following occurred. Before December 31, 2005, Cleenput's estranged wife had obtained a restraining order preventing him from contacting her or their three children. On December 31, 2005, Cleenput took the car registered to his estranged wife. When he took the car, Cleenput told his estranged wife that he would return it if she agreed to give him the children. At a hearing on his motion to withdraw the guilty plea, Cleenput's trial attorney testified that he and Cleenput discussed the case, he told Cleenput that it was possible a jury could convict him of unlawfully taking or driving a car, and when Cleenput learned that the prosecution had learned Cleenput had a prior robbery conviction and intended to amend the complaint, Cleenput chose to enter the guilty plea. Cleenput testified that he had helped pay for the car he took, he paid the 2005 registration, and he maintained the car. He acknowledged that his name was not on the title for the car. Cleenput testified that he entered the guilty plea because of "pressure." Because Cleenput entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (Pen. Code, 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts in greater detail.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue, whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Cleenput's motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
We granted Cleenput permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issue referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Cleenput on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McDONALD, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
