P. v. Rollins
Filed 7/7/06 P. v. Rollins 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. KAREEM JABBAR ROLLINS, Defendant and Appellant. | D047829 (Super. Ct. No. SCD192485) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Kareem Jabbar Rollins entered a negotiated guilty plea to selling a controlled substance. (Health & Saf., § 11352, subd. (a).) He admitted a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12) and a prior drug sales conviction (Pen. Code,
§ 1203.07, subd. (a)(11)). The court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated eight years: double the four-year middle term for selling a controlled substance with a prior strike.[1] The court denied 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 Rollins's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the prison rather than placing Rollins on probation; and (3) whether Rollins's trial counsel provided effective assistance.
We granted Rollins 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 Rollins on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Real Estate Attorney.
[1] Because Rollins 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.
