P. v. Mathers
Filed 8/29/06 P. v. Mathers 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. MATTHEW AARON MATHERS, Defendant and Appellant. | D047632 (Super. Ct. No. SCS195404) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed.
Matthew Aaron Mathers entered a negotiated guilty plea to taking or driving a car without permission (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior conviction of that offense (Pen. Code, 666.5, subd. (a)). Mathers waived the right to appeal issues related to strike priors, a motion to suppress evidence, and a stipulated sentence. The court sentenced him to a stipulated three-year middle term in prison: It did not refer to credit for time served. Subsequently, the court issued an ex parte order and awarded Mathers 98 days' credit for time served.[1] The record does not include 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 Mathers's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether Mathers's waiver of the right to appeal certain issues is valid; and (3) whether the trial court erred at the sentencing hearing in failing to award credit for time served.
We granted Mathers 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 Mathers on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
[1] Because Mathers 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.
