Filed 10/11/17 P. v. Courts CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Appellant Rene Courts appeals from the judgment and sentence following his plea of no contest to a charge of burglary of an automobile. His court-appointed attorney has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. As the appeal is based solely on grounds occurring after entry of the plea, and does not challenge the validity of the plea, it is authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).

BACKGROUND

In June 2016, a San Bruno police officer was responding to a car alarm sounding from a car dealership parking lot, when he saw appellant running in front of the dealership. The officer stopped appellant and appellant consented to a search of his property and person. A watch and flashlight were found in appellant’s possession. The front passenger window of the car with the activated alarm had been smashed with a rock. Appellant was arrested after the owner of the car arrived and positively identified his watch and flashlight, stating the items were taken from his car.

At the time of his arrest in this matter, appellant was 49 years old, had previously been convicted of eight felonies and six misdemeanors, and had been sentenced to state prison three times.

By information filed on July 6, 2016, the San Mateo County District Attorney charged appellant with one count of burglary of a motor vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 460, subdivision (b)), with allegations that he had suffered a prior serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (j) and 1170.12, subdivision (b) (second strike), and that he suffered two prior felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(4) (presumptive probation ineligibility).

On October 3, 2016, appellant pleaded no contest to the charged offense and admitted one prior. The plea was in exchange for a 32-month maximum sentence, the ability to file a motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) to strike the strike, and $2,620.31 in victim restitution. Trial counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The court granted the motion to dismiss the remaining priors and special allegations. Appellant waived his right to be sentenced by the same judge who took the plea. (People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 756-757 (Arbuckle).)

At sentencing, appellant moved to strike his prior strike conviction under Romero. The court acknowledged that the strike was remote in time, but denied the motion based on appellant’s lengthy criminal record. The court sentenced appellant to 32 months in prison as follows: the low term of 16 months for the violation of Penal Code section 460, subdivision (b), doubled because of the strike, less 389 days of presentence credit. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen.Code, § 1202.4), stayed imposition of a $300 parole revocation fine (Pen.Code, § 1202.45) pending successful completion of post release supervision, ordered appellant to submit DNA samples (Pen.Code, § 296), and ordered victim restitution in the amount of $2,620.31.

On January 10, 2017, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Where, as here, an appellant has pled guilty or no contest to an offense and no certificate of probable cause has been granted, the scope of reviewable issues is restricted to the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. (Penal Code section 1237.5, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(5).)

Appellant expressly waived his right to be sentenced by the judge who accepted his plea. (K.R. v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 295 [Arbuckle rule reaffirmed, but can be expressly waived].)

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Romero motion. (Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497, 531 ; People v. Barrera (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 541, 554-555.) Appellant was at all times represented by competent counsel who protected his rights and interests.

The sentence imposed is authorized by law.

We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues which warrant further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

KENNEDY, J.