P. v. Baqir

Filed 8/23/06 P. v. Baqir CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Defendant Lamar Bilal Baqir was an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison. He was charged with one count of battery by a prisoner (Pen. Code, § 4501.5, count 1),[1] one count of battery on a custodial officer (§ 243.1, count 2), and one count of resisting an executive officer (§ 69, count 3). The complaint alleged that defendant had suffered two prior convictions for serious felonies within the meaning of section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2).

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement defendant pled guilty to count 2 and admitted the prior convictions. Consistent with the agreement the trial court dismissed counts 1 and 3 in the interests of justice, dismissed one of the prior strike convictions, and sentenced defendant to the mitigated term of 16 months in prison, doubled to 32 months for the remaining strike pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2). The court imposed a restitution fine of $600 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and imposed and stayed a parole revocation fine in the same amount (§ 1202.45). The court also ordered defendant to submit buccal swab samples, prints, blood specimens, and other biological samples as required by section 296. At the same proceeding the court ordered that defendant's sentence for a previous conviction (§ 4502, subd. (a) (possession of a weapon by an inmate)) be subordinate to the term for the instant crime, which resulted in a additional consecutive term of 12 months.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.

We note that defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause, which is required by section 1237.5 when a defendant seeks to appeal from a judgment entered following a guilty plea. Accordingly, the appeal is inoperative insofar as it purports to challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (§ 1237.5, subd. (a).) The exception to the certificate requirement is when the notice of appeal states that the appeal is based on: â€