P. v. Gonzales
Filed 9/27/06 P. v. Gonzales 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ARMANDO R. GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant. | D048162 (Super. Ct. No. SCD196581) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert Trentacosta and Esteban Hernandez, Judges. Affirmed.
Armando R. Gonzales entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a minor under the age of 14 years. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).)[1] The court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated 10 years: the eight-year upper term on one count with a consecutive two years on the second count (one-third the middle term). 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 Gonzales's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether an adequate factual basis supports the guilty plea; and (3) whether the charges were barred by the statute of limitations.
We granted Gonzales 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 Gonzales on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
[1] Because Gonzales entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
