P. v. Mallery
Filed 10/5/06 P. v. Mallery 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. MICHAEL MALLERY, Defendant and Appellant. | D047825 (Super. Ct. No. SCD193701) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles R Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael Mallery entered a negotiated guilty plea to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), and admitted a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). The court sentenced him to a stipulated four years in prison: double the two-year middle term for second degree burglary with a prior strike. The court 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 Mallery's guilty plea was voluntary, knowing and intelligent; (2) whether the trial court erred in arraigning Mallery more than 48 hours after his arrest, whether Mallery can raise this issue on appeal, and whether this is reversible error; (3) whether Mallery was incarcerated at the time of the alleged crime; and (4) whether Mallery's trial counsel misadvised him regarding the prosecution possibly amending the complaint.[1]
We granted Mallery permission to file a supplemental brief and granted four requests for extensions of time to file a supplemental 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 Mallery on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
[1] Because Mallery 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.
