P. v. Shoemake
Filed 3/22/06 P. v. Shoemake 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977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. DARREN S. SHOEMAKE, Defendant and Appellant. | D046930 (Super. Ct. No. SCD188776) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, George W. Clarke, Judge. Affirmed.
Darren S. Shoemake entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and admitted committing the crime while released on bail or his own recognizance (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b)).[1] The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years' probation including a condition he serve 365 days in custody.[2] 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.[3]
We granted Shoemake 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, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Shoemake on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] On the same day Shoemake entered the guilty plea in superior court case number SCD188776, he entered a guilty plea to residential burglary in unrelated case, case No. SCD185424.
[2] Shoemake did not fall within Penal Code section 1210.1 (no incarceration of a defendant convicted of a nonviolent drug offense) because, in addition to the drug conviction, he was convicted of a serious felony in case No. SCD185424. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21), 1210.1, subd. (b)(1).)
[3] Because Shoemake 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.
