P. v. Smeltzer
Filed 5/31/06 P. v. Smeltzer 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 APEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW L. SMELTZER, Defendant and Appellant. | D047227 (Super. Ct. No. SCD178277) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.
Matthew L. Smeltzer entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.1, subd. (a)) and admitted two prior strikes (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). The court struck one prior strike and sentenced him to prison for six years: double the three-year upper term for possessing child pornography with a prior strike. The 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 possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Smeltzer was advised of and waived his constitutional rights before entering the guilty plea; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term; and (3) whether the trial court erred in determining credit for time served.[1]
We granted Smeltzer 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 Smeltzer on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Because Smeltzer 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.
