P. v. Holland
Filed 5/30/06 P. v. Holland 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. CORIADGE L. HOLLAND, Defendant and Appellant. | D047386 (Super. Ct. No. SCD194049) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.
The People charged Coriadge L. Holland with selling/furnishing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). They also alleged he had two prior convictions for possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a); Pen. Code,[1] § 1203.07, subd. (a)(11)), had three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668) and had served two prior prison terms (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). He entered a negotiated guilty plea to selling/furnishing cocaine base, admitted probation ineligibility because of the prior convictions for possessing cocaine base for sale and admitted one prior strike.[2] The court sentenced him to a stipulated prison term of eight years consisting of: four-year middle term for selling/furnishing cocaine base, doubled because of the prior strike conviction. The court issued 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 advised the court Holland does not desire to challenge the guilty plea but refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether an adequate factual basis supports the guilty plea; (2) whether Holland's guilty plea was voluntary, knowing and intelligent; (3) whether Holland's trial counsel provided effective assistance in failing to file a motion to suppress evidence (§ 1538.5); and (4) whether Holland effectively gave up his right to referral to the probation department.
We granted Holland 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 issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Holland on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Attorneys.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Because Holland entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) Therefore, we need not recite the facts.
