P. v. Castillo
Filed 4/18/06 P. v. Castillo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. CLAUDIA CASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant. | D047276 (Super. Ct. No. SCS193900) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rafael Arreola & Raymond Edwards, Jr., Judges. Affirmed.
Claudia Castillo entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359.) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on three years' probation including a condition she serve 103 days in custody. More than two months after the probation/sentencing hearing, Castillo moved to withdraw her guilty plea. The court denied the motion. The court also 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 the sentence was in accord with the plea agreement; (2) whether Castillo was misadvised regarding the immigration consequences of her guilty plea; and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.[1]
We granted Castillo permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She 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 Castillo on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, J.
NARES, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Apartment Manager Attorneys.
[1] Because Castillo entered a guilty plea, she 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.
