P. v. Simpson
Filed 9/28/07 P. v. Simpson CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY DWAYNE SIMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. | A116764 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC61827) |
Gary Dwayne Simpson appeals from a judgment of conviction after a guilty plea. Defendants counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief and none has been filed. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that there are no meritorious issues to be briefed or argued.
Factual and Procedural Background
On July 27, 2006, an East Palo Alto police officer found defendant sleeping in a car that had been reported stolen from Hertz Car Rental. Defendant rented the car on May 4, 2006, and did not return it. Defendant resisted arrest and swung his arms to avoid being handcuffed. Two bags containing 7.83 grams of rock cocaine base were in the car.
After a preliminary hearing and the filing of a multi-count information that included allegations of 12 prior convictions, defendant agreed to a negotiated disposition and pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350. The other counts were dismissed and the court granted a motion pursuant to People v. (Superior Court) Romero (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, to strike an alleged Penal Code section 1170.12 prior strike. The court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on probation for three years and ordered him to serve one year in the county jail.
Discussion
Competent counsel represented defendant at all stages of the proceedings. With the assistance of counsel, defendant executed a change of plea form, was also advised by the court of his constitutional rights, the terms of the disposition and the consequences of his change of plea and expressly waived his rights. There was no error in the sentencing proceedings or the sentence imposed. The court awarded appropriate credits for time served.
By pleading guilty to the charge, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the crime and therefore is not entitled to review of any issue that merely goes to guilt or innocence. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) In addition, Penal Code section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) bar appeals following a guilty plea unless defendant seeks and receives a certificate of probable cause which he did not receive.[1]
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Stein, J.
______________________
Swager, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1]The statutory exceptions are not applicable to this case.
