Filed 4/30/18 P. v. Khan CA5








NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHABREENA KHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.


F075529

(Super. Ct. No. F16903244)

OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. F. Brian Alvarez, Judge.
R. Randall Riccardo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Shabreena Khan pled no contest to one felony count of violating Welfare and Institutions Code section 10980, subdivision (c)(2). She was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Khan appealed and appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
A felony complaint was filed on May 31, 2016, charging Khan and her husband with one count each of violating section 10980, subdivision (c)(2), fraudulently obtaining aid in excess of $950.
On January 9, 2017, Khan signed a felony advisement, waiver of rights, and plea form whereby she agreed to plead no contest to the charged offense and stipulated to restitution in the amount of $22,950. In exchange for her plea, the parties agreed she would be placed on probation, participate in the “Adult Work Offender Program,” and be eligible for reduction of the offense to a misdemeanor if she satisfactorily completed probation and paid restitution in full. The plea form did acknowledge, however, that the maximum potential sentence for the offense was three years in local custody. Defense counsel was representing Khan when she signed the plea form.
Defense counsel also signed the plea form, declaring that she had discussed the facts of the case with Khan, advised Khan of the elements of the offense and possible defenses, and informed Khan of the consequences of her plea.
On the afternoon of January 9, 2017, Khan was before the trial court on the plea agreement. At that time, the trial court asked Khan if she had sufficient time to review the plea form with her attorney, to which Khan replied, “Yes.” The trial court then informed Khan of her constitutional and statutory rights and consequences of her plea, including immigration consequences. Khan affirmed that she was entering into the plea freely and voluntarily.
Both parties stipulated that the investigative reports provided a factual basis for the plea. The trial court accepted Khan’s plea of no contest to one count of violating section 10980, subdivision (c)(2) and her stipulation to restitution in the amount of $22,950. The trial court found that Khan:
“knowingly, intelligently, expressly and understandingly waived your statutory and your constitutional rights and that your plea was freely and voluntarily made with your understanding of the nature of the charge as well as its consequences. There is a factual basis for your plea.”
After entering her plea, Khan remained released on her own recognizance pending sentencing. At the March 1, 2017, sentencing, the trial court suspended imposition of judgment and placed Khan on felony probation for a term of five years. One condition of probation was that she serve 45 days in local custody, 44 of those days to be served in the Adult Offender Work Program. Khan was to be credited for one day of local custody when she presented herself to be photographed, fingerprinted, and released. Khan was ordered to pay restitution in the agreed upon amount of $22,950, which was ordered jointly and severally liable with the codefendant.
Various other terms and conditions of probation were imposed. After the trial court finished stating the terms and conditions of probation, Khan was asked if she agreed to the terms and conditions. Khan responded in the affirmative.
The minute order for the sentencing hearing accurately reflects the sentence imposed by the trial court. On April 21, 2017, a letter from Khan was received by the trial court, in which Khan stated she wanted to “appeal my case.”
By an order filed on October 18, 2017, this court construed Khan’s letter as a notice of appeal “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 on November 8, 2017. That same day, this court issued its letter inviting Khan to submit supplemental briefing. No supplemental brief was filed.
By entering a plea of no contest, Khan admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the section 10980 offense, and, therefore, is not entitled to a review of any issue going to the question of guilt of the underlying offense. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.)
Once a no contest plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits, both parties must abide by the agreement. (People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 929-930.) Khan received the benefit of her bargain. The trial court imposed a sentence that was in accordance with the plea agreement. Having received the benefit of her bargain, she cannot “better the bargain through the appellate process.” (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295.)
After an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.