P. v. Hernandez
Filed 8/14/06 P. v. Hernandez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. RICHARD HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | D048166 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCS199475 & SCD193495) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed.
In superior court case number SCS199475, Richard Hernandez entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (heroin) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and in case No. SCD193495, he entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to a stipulated term of two years eight months in prison: the two-year middle term for possessing a controlled substance in case No. SCD199475 with eight month consecutive for possessing methamphetamine in case No. SCD193495 (one-third the middle term). 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 possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Hernandez's guilty pleas were free and voluntary; (2) whether Hernandez was properly advised of the maximum consequences of his guilty pleas; (3) whether Hernandez's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance through misadvising him of the maximum consequences of his guilty pleas; and (4) whether Hernandez should have been placed on probation pursuant to Proposition 36.[1]
We granted Hernandez permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not directly responded but wrote a letter addressed to the trial court, which we treat as a supplemental brief. In Hernandez's letter to the trial court seeking relief, he states because his mother had been arrested for a crime he committed, he was told that his entry of the guilty pleas was the only way she would be released. Whether Hernandez was coerced into entering the guilty pleas through references to the arrest of his mother is relevant only to the validity of the pleas. (See People v. Pinon (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 904, 910.) Absent a certificate of probable cause, a defendant cannot challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The record here does not include a certificate of probable cause.
A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and the issue raised by Hernandez, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Hernandez on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
[1] Because Hernandez entered guilty pleas, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
