Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Brian S. McCarville, Judge, Super.Ct.No. FSB54638.
Jamie L. Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Gaut J.
Defendant Anthony Ray Alonzo appeals from a judgment committing him to state prison for eight years eight months, entered following a sentence bargain. His notice of appeal challenges the validity of his guilty plea.
BACKGROUND
Following the consolidation of three separately filed prosecutions, defendant was charged by way of amended complaint with five counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, counts 1-5), and one count of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) On June 15, 2006, prior to a preliminary hearing (Pen. Code, § 859a), defendant entered a plea of guilty to three counts of burglary (counts 1, 4, 5), admitted violations of probation in two other cases, stipulated to a sentence of eight years eight months for the current case, with concurrent terms of three years each for the cases in which probation was revoked. In addition, the plea agreement included a waiver of appeal rights. For a factual basis, defendant stated he burglarized three homes.
On October 20, 2006, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty on the ground it was not knowingly and intelligently made. Specifically, defendant asserted he only pled guilty because his attorney had told him he faced a sentence of 13 years to life if he did not do so. After hearing the testimony of defendant, his mother, and his trial counsel, the court denied the motion. The court then sentenced defendant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. Defendant appealed and requested a certificate of probable cause, which was granted.
We granted defendant’s request to deem his late notice of appeal constructively filed timely on August 22, 2007.
DISCUSSION
At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1386, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered appellant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record, including the grounds asserted in the notice of appeal pertaining to the denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Defendant’s claim in the trial court that he was misadvised of the potential maximum term he faced if he went to trial was based on information outside the record relating to an alleged conversation he had with his trial attorney. The court found this testimony was not credible. We are bound by this determination. (People v. Quesada (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 525, 533.) The proper vehicle for relief is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (People v. Jones (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1084, 1105; People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426.)
The change of plea included a waiver of appeal rights. The record reveals defendant was effectively represented (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674]), and that he was fully advised of the constitutional rights he was waiving. (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242, 244, fn.7 [89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132.) The trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the plea based on its determination that defendant’s testimony was not credible is supported by the record, demonstrates there was no good cause to vacate the plea, and was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion. (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1254.)
Appellant was effectively represented by counsel in the trial court as well as on appeal. We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Ramirez P. J., Richli J.