Filed 2/8/18 P. v. Gama CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICHARD ANTHONY GAMA, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.
C084156

(Super. Ct. No. 16FE021111)






Appointed counsel for defendant Richard Anthony Gama, Jr., filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Defendant was involved in a dating relationship with N.P. Between late October and early November of 2016, he hit her and left her with numerous bruises. Defendant also had a prior 2009 strike conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant pleaded no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a person whom he was dating (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)—count one) and admitted the prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Before sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.
In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years as to count one doubled for a total of eight years based upon the admitted prior strike. The trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), imposed but stayed an identical parole revocation fine of $300 (§ 1202.45), imposed a court operations fee of $40 (§ 1465.8) and a criminal conviction fee of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Defendant appeals. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant filed a supplemental brief making a number of claims challenging the validity of his plea, including the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, and lack of credibility of the victim’s statements. These claims require a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 679.) The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



BUTZ , J.



We concur:



BLEASE , Acting P. J.



HULL , J.