P. v. Lee
Filed 8/24/06 P. v. Lee 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ANTHONY B. LEE, Defendant and Appellant. | D047455 (Super. Ct. No. SCD185319) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
After the trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), Anthony B. Lee entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and admitted ineligibility for mandatory probation (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (b)(1)), and serving two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The court denied a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and sentenced him to a stipulated 40 months in prison: the 16-month lower term for possessing a controlled substance, enhanced by two 1-year terms for the prior prison terms.[1] 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 refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court abused is discretion in denying Lee's motion to withdraw the guilty plea; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Lee's motion to suppress evidence.
We granted Lee permission to file a brief on his own behalf and a request for an extension of time to file the brief. He has not personally filed a brief. 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 Lee on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
[1] Because Lee 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.
