P. v. Edlin
Filed 10/26/06 P. v. Edlin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. DENNY WILLIAM EDLIN, Defendant and Appellant. | D048209 (Super. Ct. No. JCF14931) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Christopher Yeager, Judge. Affirmed.
Denny William Edlin entered negotiated guilty pleas to one count of forcible lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)) and one count of oral copulation upon an unconscious minor under the age of 14 years.[1] (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (f)(1).) The court denied a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas and sentenced Edlin to prison for the eight-year upper term on each count to run concurrently. 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 Edlin was properly advised of his constitutional rights and was his plea entry in accordance with Boykin/Tahl procedure (Boykin v. Alabama (1968) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122); (2) whether Edlin's original trial attorney properly advised him on the possible consequences of Edlin's pending federal case, i.e., was Edlin misled into believing his maximum exposure in the federal case was six to nine years as opposed to 50 to 90 years; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to hear testimony on Edlin's motion to withdraw the guilty plea; and (4) whether Edlin was prejudiced by his attorney's incomplete or incorrect advise about the possible federal sentence.
We granted Edlin 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 Edlin on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
[1] Because Edlin entered guilty pleas, 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.
