Filed 7/25/17 P. v. Coray CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANDRE ANGE CORAY,
Defendant and Appellant.

A149991

(Humboldt County
Super. Ct. No. CR1604540)


Defendant Andre Ange Coray appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a plea of no contest to one count of felony stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)). Consistent with the terms of the negotiated disposition, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation (the prosecution stipulated to unusual circumstances, making him eligible for probation) subject to numerous conditions, including that he serve 365 days in the county jail (with credits of 84 days) and abide by a three-year criminal protective order. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so.
Penal Code section 1237.5 generally precludes an appeal from a judgment of conviction after a plea of no contest or guilty unless the defendant has applied for, and the trial court has granted, a certificate of probable cause. There are two exceptions: (1) a challenge to a search and seizure ruling, as to which an appeal is proper under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) post-plea sentencing issues. (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; see People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.) Defendant did not make a suppression motion. Nor did he apply for a certificate of probable cause. He is therefore not able to challenge the validity of his plea or any other matter that preceded its entry. (People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 868.) We therefore limit our review to postplea sentencing.
Defendant agreed to resolve the case on the day scheduled for the preliminary hearing. Defendant executed a plea and waiver of rights form, and the trial court questioned defendant directly to ensure he understood the proposed disposition and entered into it freely and voluntarily. Based on the police report and stipulation of counsel, the court found there was a factual basis for the charged offense and the plea. Following the acceptance of defendant’s no contest plea, the court continued the matter for sentencing.
After hearing from both defense counsel and the prosecution, and stating it had reviewed the probation report and considered letters from defendant and an anonymous individual, the trial court sentenced defendant consistent with the proposed disposition. The court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on formal probation for three years, subject to numerous terms and conditions, including serving 365 days in the county jail (with 84 days of credit) and a three-year criminal protective order. The court also imposed a number of fees and fines, but due to defendant’s inability to pay, declined to impose the booking fee, presentence report fee and the probation supervision fee.
On the record before us, defendant was ably represented by counsel, and he was accorded full opportunity to present his views on sentencing.
DISPOSITION
Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.






_________________________
Banke, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Margulies, P.J.


_________________________
Dondero, J.