P. v. Henry
Filed 6/6/06 P. v. Henry CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL E. HENRY, Defendant and Appellant. | D047628 (Super. Ct. No. SCD191047) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel E. Henry entered a negotiated guilty plea to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a))[1] and admitted personally using a firearm and inflicting great bodily injury (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated 14 years: the seven-year middle term for attempted murder enhanced by the four-year middle term for gun use and three years for inflicting great bodily injury. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible but not arguable issue whether a sentencing appeal following a guilty plea with a stipulated sentence requires a certificate of probable cause.[2]
We granted Henry permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issue referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Henry on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Because Henry entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
