Filed 12/5/18 P. v. Martus CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. R. Glenn Yabuno, Judge. Affirmed.

Linnea M. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Robert Lawrence Martus was charged by felony complaint with carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. (Pen. Code,[1] § 21310, count 1.) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 1. A trial court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in state prison, in accordance with the agreement.

Defendant filed a handwritten notice of appeal. He also requested a request for certificate of probable cause, in which he asked for a sober living program in a different county or dismissal of count 1. He also alleged that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel, alleging that defense counsel never attempted to investigate his claim that the knife he possessed was a steak knife. The court granted the request. We affirm the judgment.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2018, defendant was charged by felony complaint with carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. (§ 21310.) He pled not guilty.

Defendant subsequently entered a plea agreement and pled no contest. Before accepting the plea, the court asked defendant if he personally initialed and signed the plea form, and he confirmed that he did. The court asked if he discussed the plea form with his attorney and understood everything on it. The court reviewed his constitutional rights and asked if he understood he would be giving up these rights. Defendant confirmed that he understood all the constitutional rights he was waiving, the nature of the charges, and the penalties and punishments. Defendant affirmed that no one had made any promises of a lesser sentence, no one had used threats or violence to force him to plead no contest, he was not under the influence of alcohol or medicine, and he had enough time to discuss his case with his attorney, including all of his rights, potential defenses, penalties, and future consequences. He also affirmed that he understood that if he was not a United States citizen, he could be deported as a result of the conviction. Defense counsel agreed that she had adequate time to discuss the issues with defendant and that he understood everything on the plea form. The court found that defendant had read and understood the plea form and was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights. Defendant orally entered a plea of no contest to count 1. Defense counsel joined, and the People accepted. The parties stipulated to the police reports and felony complaint as establishing a factual basis for the plea. The court then sentenced defendant, pursuant to the agreement, to the low term of 16 months in state prison.

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and no potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

We concur:

MILLER

J.

SLOUGH

J.