P. v. Woslum
Filed 8/4/06 P. v. Woslum 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. WILLIAM LAMAR WOSLUM, Defendant and Appellant. | D047553 (Super. Ct. No. SCD192673) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Albert T. Harutunian III, Judge. Affirmed.
William Lamar Woslum entered guilty pleas to two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a))[1] and exhibiting harmful material with the intent to seduce a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a)). He admitted one prior serous felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). The trial court found true an allegation that he had been convicted of a second prior serious felony., It appointed separate counsel to represent Woslum in a possible motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. After Woslum withdrew the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas, he again requested appointment of separate counsel to represent him on a possible motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. After holding an in camera hearing, the court denied the request. It sentenced Woslum to prison for 20 years: the eight-year upper term on one lewd and lascivious conduct conviction with a consecutive two years on the second lewd and lascivious conduct conviction, enhanced by two five-year terms for the prior serious felony convictions. It imposed a concurrent term on the conviction of exhibiting harmful material with the intent to seduce a minor. The court issued 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 Woslum's guilty pleas were constitutionally valid; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to appoint special counsel to investigate the second possible motion to withdraw the guilty pleas; (3) whether sufficient evidence supports the court's finding that Woslum was convicted of the second prior serious felony; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion and denied Woslum a jury trial when it imposed the upper term and consecutive terms.[2]
We granted Woslum permission to file a brief on his own behalf and granted a request for extension of time to file a supplemental brief. 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 Woslum on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
IRION, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Real Estate Attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Because Wolsom entered guilty pleas, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
