P. v. Wilson

Filed 4/13/06 P. v. Wilson CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. W. Charles Morgan, Judge. Affirmed.

Laura Schaefer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch, Deputy Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Robert M. Foster, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851) (count 1) and one count of misdemeanor false impersonation (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. (3)) (count 3). Defendant also admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)) and that he had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). In return, defendant agreed to a stipulated term of three years eight months in state prison and the dismissal of all remaining charges and prior conviction allegations.

Defendant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After defendant's motion was heard and denied, the trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed upon term of three years eight months in state prison.

Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We provided defendant with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has done. Defendant has filed a 48-page supplemental brief asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a certificate of probable cause. Defendant also attacks the notice of plea form as misleading. We have read and considered that brief.

The People thereafter filed a respondent's brief, arguing the appeal is not properly before this court since defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P.J.

KING

J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Lawyers.