Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SCD200546, Robert F. O'Neill and David J. Danielson, Judges.
HALLER, Acting P. J.
Jesus Bugarin, Jr., entered a negotiated guilty plea to conspiring to commit second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 211) after the trial court denied his motions to suppress evidence (§ 1538.5) and set aside the information (§ 995). The court sentenced Bugarin to two years in prison.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTS
On May 17, 2006, Harry Penate, a special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, was working undercover and purchased firearms from codefendants Arnoldo Gonzalez, Jr., and Edgar Barboza. Penate and Gonzalez discussed a home invasion robbery of a stash house that Penate operated; the stash house contained cocaine and money. Unknown to Gonzalez, the stash house did not exist.
On July 12 Penate met again with Gonzalez and codefendant Isaias Sandoval to further discuss the home invasion robbery. During several follow-up telephone conversations they agreed to commit the home invasion robbery of the stash house on July 28.
On the morning of July 28 Penate met with Gonzalez, Sandoval, Barboza, Bugarin and a juvenile in a motel room. During their discussion, Penate told each one of the defendants that if he did not want to participate he could walk away and there would be no hard feelings.
Penate and the defendants drove in two vehicles to a parking lot. Penate showed them a rental SUV which was supposed to be the getaway vehicle. Penate then gave the signal to S.W.A.T. team officers to arrest the defendants.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth 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 the trial court erred by denying Bugarin's motion to suppress evidence; (2) whether Bugarin effectively waived his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion; (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising Bugarin to waive his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion as part of his plea bargain; and (4) whether the court abused its discretion by denying Bugarin probation.
We granted Bugarin permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the 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, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Bugarin on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McINTYRE, J., AARON, J.