Filed 12/15/17 P. v. Marshall CA4/3






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT EARL MARSHALL,

Defendant and Appellant.


G054543

(Super. Ct. No. 16WF1514)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nicholas S. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.
Belinda Escobosa Helzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Robert E. Marshall pleaded guilty to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5) and admitted eight prison prior enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The People dismissed two of the 10 alleged prison prior enhancements.
As the factual basis for his plea, defendant stated the following: “In Orange County, California, on 4/20/16, I did unlawfully by means of force and fear take the personal property against the will of & from the person, possession and immediate presence of Kris M.”
Based on the nature of defendant’s current offense and his having suffered two or more prior felony convictions, the court found defendant was presumptively ineligible for probation. (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4).) The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to six years in state prison — the high term of four years on the robbery count and one year each for the two most recent prison priors, striking the remaining prison prior allegations for sentencing purposes only. In selecting the high term, the court found the following factors in aggravation: (1) defendant had a long history of criminal conduct; (2) defendant’s criminal conduct involved a “high degree of sophistication”; (3) defendant’s history of theft-related offenses involved significant amounts of money; (4) “there was some violence in effecting his escape and a certain degree of sophistication in effecting his escape in this case”; and (5) defendant denied alcohol or drugs played a role in his criminal convictions.
Defendant filed two timely notices of appeal: The first challenged the validity of his plea or admission; the second challenged the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. The court denied a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5. We appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel did not argue against defendant, but advised the court she was unable to find an issue to argue on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, but he has not done so.
We have examined the entire record but have not found an arguable issue. Without a certificate of probable cause, defendant is limited to challenging his sentence or other matters occurring after his plea. (§ 1237.5.) Defendant was facing a maximum exposure of 12 years in state prison. He was sentenced to six years. The court manifestly acted within its sentencing discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.



IKOLA, J.

WE CONCUR:



MOORE, ACTING P. J.



FYBEL, J