Filed 5/8/18 P. v. Griffin CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY LA SHAUN GRIFFIN,

Defendant and Appellant.


E069089

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1701182)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Christian F. Thierbach, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed with directions.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Anthony La Shaun Griffin, pled guilty to three counts of receiving stolen vehicles with a prior conviction for a vehicle-related theft (counts 1-3; Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (count 4; § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant additionally admitted suffering three prior prison terms. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to five years of imprisonment.
After defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and identifying four potentially arguable issues: (1) whether there was an adequate factual basis for the plea; (2) whether an appeal asserting an inadequate factual basis for the plea may proceed without a certificate of probable cause; (3) whether the court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon term; and (4) whether purported errors in the calculation of custody credits, fines, and fees are independently appealable. We affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2017, the People charged defendant by felony complaint with three counts of receiving stolen vehicles with a prior conviction for a vehicle-related theft (counts 1-3; § 666.5, subd. (a)), being a felon in possession of a firearm (count 4; § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and being a felon in possession of ammunition (count 5; § 30305, subd. (a)). The People additionally alleged defendant had committed the count 1 offense while released on mandatory supervision (§ 12022.1) and had suffered 12 prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On June 26, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to counts 1 through 4 and admitted suffering three prior prison terms. As the factual basis for the plea, defendant admitted that on February 16, 2017, he possessed a stolen Kia Sephia car; that also on February 16, 2017, he possessed a stolen Grand Cherokee; that on an unspecified date, he had possession of a stolen BMW R1200 motorcycle; that he had previously been convicted of receiving a stolen vehicle; and that he had possession of a firearm he was legally prohibited from possessing. The plea agreement specified defendant would receive a total of five years in state prison.
On July 10, 2017, as provided in the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of five years and dismissed the remaining count and allegations. On September 7, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal in which he requested issuance of a certificate of probable cause based upon three contentions: (1) his prior prison term enhancements should be reduced to county jail time pursuant to Proposition 57; (2) counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by informing defendant the enhancements would incur county jail time rather than prison time; and (3) he apparently took issue with the five-year sentence. The court denied the request.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues. (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303 [“Proposition 57 prohibits prosecutors from charging juveniles with crimes directly in adult court.”]; People v. Zuniga (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1187 [a challenge to the factual basis for a plea is a challenge to the validity of the plea itself which requires a certificate of probable cause]; §§ 1237.1 [“No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the calculation of presentence custody credits, unless the defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for correction of the record in the trial court . . . .”], 1237.2 [“An appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs unless the defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for correction in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing.”].)
III. DISPOSITION
The superior court is directed to correct the minute order dated June 26, 2017, to reflect defendant’s guilty pleas to the counts 1 through 3 offenses. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

McKINSTER
J.


We concur:

RAMIREZ
P. J.

SLOUGH
J.