P. v. Reid
Filed 3/9/06 P. v. Reid 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. MICHAEL E. REID, Defendant and Appellant. | D046729 (Super. Ct. No. SCD185638) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roger W. Krauel and Kenneth K. So, Judges. Affirmed.
After the court denied a discovery motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531), Michael E. Reid entered a negotiated guilty plea to selling and possessing for sale a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a), 11351.5.) He admitted a prior conviction of selling a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)), six prior felony convictions (Pen Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4)) and serving six prior prison terms (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The court sentenced him to prison for seven years: the four-year middle term for selling a controlled substance, enhanced three years for the prior conviction of selling a controlled substance. It stayed sentence on the conviction of possessing a controlled substance for sale and attached enhancement (Pen. Code, § 654) and struck the remaining prior prison term enhancements. 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 there is a factual basis for the guilty plea; (2) whether the sentence was in accord with the plea agreement; and (3) whether possession for sale is a lesser included offense of selling a controlled substance.[1]
We granted Reid 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 Reid on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of El Cajon Immigration Attorney (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And El Cajon Lawyers Directory (http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )
[1] Because Reid entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
