P. v. Gonzalez
Filed 3/12/07 P. v. Gonzalez CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OSCAR V. GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | D049353 (Super. Ct. No. SCS202962) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Affirmed.
Oscar V. Gonzalez entered a negotiated guilty plea to transporting more than 28.5 grams of marijuana and admitted that the marijuana was not for his personal use. (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 1210, subd. (a).) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Gonzalez on three years' probation including a condition that he serve 30 days in custody. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304, former rule 30(b).)
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576), the following occurred. Gonzalez was arrested at the United States/Mexico Border. He had 25.52 pounds of marijuana. Because Gonzalez 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 in greater detail.
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 Gonzalez's guilty plea is constitutionally valid; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying a predetermined formula to determine the number of days Gonzalez would be ordered to serve in custody.
We granted Gonzalez 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 Gonzalez on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
