P. v. Cole












Filed 3/24/17 P. v. Cole 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
PETER SEAN COLE,
Defendant and Appellant.


A149226

(Mendocino County
Super. Ct. No. 201686237)


Peter Sean Cole appeals following his guilty plea to a felony failure to appear while released on his own recognizance in violation of Penal Code section 1320, subdivision (b).[1] His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Cole provided a false identity to a California Highway Patrol officer and was charged with false personation in violation of section 529, subdivision (a)(3), a felony. While he was released on his own recognizance, he failed to appear for a proceeding in that case on June 1, 2016. He was charged in this proceeding with felony failure to appear in violation of section 1320, subdivision (b).
Cole waived preliminary hearing on the complaint filed in this case. Following the preliminary hearing on the false personation charge, Cole successfully moved to reduce it to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b). He also moved to reduce the failure to appear to a misdemeanor. When his motion to reduce the failure to appear was denied, he promptly agreed to plead no contest in a negotiated disposition.
A special allegation was dismissed and the district attorney agreed not to seek time in prison. The district attorney provided a factual basis for the plea, and Cole stipulated to the facts as stated. The court accepted the plea, and imposition of sentence was suspended. Cole was placed on probation for 36 months, with credit for time served, appropriate conditions of probation, and fees and assessments were imposed in lawful measure. His notice of appeal states he is appealing his sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
DISCUSSION
Cole’s counsel has represented that she advised Cole of her intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of Cole’s right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so. Cole has also been advised of his right to request that counsel be relieved.
Cole properly appeals only those issues arising after his plea. Absent a certificate of probable cause, an appeal by a defendant from a judgment entered on a guilty plea may only raise issues falling within two “noncertificate” categories, namely, “issues relating to the validity of a search and seizure . . . and issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed. [Citations.]” (People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780, 776.) There are no such issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.







_________________________
Siggins, J.


We concur:


_________________________
McGuiness, P.J.


_________________________
Pollak, J.


Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com



[1] Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise designated.