P. v. Nelson
Filed 5/25/10 P. v. Nelson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TARA DANIELLE NELSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C062932 (Super. Ct. No. 09F05588) |
Defendant Tara Danielle Nelson pled no contest to grand theft, as a related offense to the charge of attempted robbery alleged in count one, in exchange for a stipulated lower term prison sentence and the dismissal of two misdemeanor charges and a probation violation allegation. The factual basis for the plea was that on July 24, 2009, defendant took property from a store employee. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for the lower term of 16 months pursuant to the plea agreement.
Defendant timely filed this appeal, but she did not request a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.
Counsel advised this court that after the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court amended the credit award to give defendant credit for 26 days of actual custody credits and 26 days of conduct credits. (See People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354.)
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.
Defendant has filed a letter alleging her trial attorney did not adequately investigate her case and she was pressured into accepting the plea agreement. She also contends she could not be guilty of grand theft, because that offense requires a taking of over $400. Her contention of innocence is foreclosed by her plea. (See People v. Thurman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36, 43.) Further, without a certificate of probable cause, she cannot attack the validity of the plea. (See People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.) Finally, the record on appeal is not adequate to address her claim that the plea flowed from the failings of her counsel. (See People v. Mitchell (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 442, 466-467.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
HULL, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
