P. v. Reynolds
Filed 6/13/06 P. v. Reynolds 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. STEPHEN M. REYNOLDS, Defendant and Appellant. | D047099 (Super. Ct. No. SCD186170) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roger W. Krauel and George W. Clarke, Judges. Affirmed.
On October 14, 2004, the People charged Stephen M. Reynolds with indecent exposure with a prior conviction of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. (1)),[1] and alleged he had two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668) and had served two prior prison terms (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). On October 27, the court suspended criminal proceedings to have Reynolds evaluated for mental competency. (§ 1368.) On November 24, the court denied a request by Reynolds to proceed in propria persona, considered a stipulated psychiatrist's report, found Reynolds mentally incompetent, and committed Reynolds to Patton State Hospital for a maximum term of three years. On May 16, 2005, Reynolds returned to court and the court found him mentally competent. On June 6, Reynolds entered a negotiated guilty plea to indecent exposure and admitted a prior indecent exposure conviction and one prior strike. The court struck the prior strike and sentenced him to prison for the three-year upper term.[2] The court 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 a possible but not arguable issue whether the trial court erred in denying Reynolds's request to proceed in propria persona.
We granted Reynolds permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He refused to accept our notice that he had 30 days to file a supplemental 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 Reynolds on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Attorneys.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Because Reynolds entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
