People v. Buffham

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW CHANCE BUFFHAM, Defendant…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 27, 2012

D061677 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2012)

Opinion

D061677

09-27-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW CHANCE BUFFHAM, Defendant and Appellant.

O'ROURKE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. SCE316070)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Matthew Chance Buffham pleaded guilty to a felony threat to commit bodily harm to another individual. (Pen. Code, § 422.) In exchange, the People dismissed a kidnapping charge (Pen. Code, § 207) and a false imprisonment charge (Pen. Code, §§ 236/237) against him. The court granted him three years formal probation on condition that he serve 270 days in jail and pay certain fines. Buffham appeals. We affirm.

Appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court 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 possible but not arguable issues of whether: (1) Buffham's waiver of the right to appeal was valid; (2) his guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (3) there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause; and (5) his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance.

We granted Buffham permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. Our review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel and the circumstances surrounding the court's taking of the plea, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Buffham on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O'ROURKE, J. WE CONCUR: __________________

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
__________________

HALLER, J.