P. v. Huff
Filed 7/14/06 P. v. Huff 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. LARRY HUFF, Defendant and Appellant. | D048085 (Super. Ct. No. SCD191025) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Larry Huff entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and admitted serving four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated seven years: the three-year upper term for possessing a controlled substance enhanced by four 1-year terms for the prior prison terms. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).) Because Huff entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
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 Huff was advised of his rights and the consequences and whether he waived his rights before pleading guilty; (2) whether Huff can appeal denial of his Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531); (3) whether there is evidence in the record that the government lost evidence and whether Huff can raise this issue after the guilty plea and; (4) whether there is evidence in the record that Huff was coerced into entering the guilty plea in deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel. We granted Huff 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 Huff on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Real Estate Attorney.
