Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVI801930. Miriam I. Morton, Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, J.
Defendant and appellant Jimmy Gene Hancock was charged with second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, count 1), evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 2), resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69, count 3), and battery upon an officer and emergency personnel (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (b), count 4). It was further alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to counts 2 and 3 and admitted the prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced him to the agreed-upon term of two years on count 2, doubled because of the strike, and a consecutive eight months on count 3, doubled because of the strike, for a total term of five years four months.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2008, defendant pled not guilty to all counts.
On November 21, 2008, upon application by defense counsel, the court ordered that Veronica Thomas, Ph.D., be admitted to the jail for a psychological examination of defendant, in order to determine if defendant had a mental defect defense.
On January 23, 2008, defendant withdrew his plea and entered into a plea agreement, under which he pled guilty to counts 2 and 3 and admitted the prior strike conviction. Before accepting the plea, the court questioned him. Defendant confirmed that he had initialed and signed the plea form, he understood everything on the form and the constitutional rights he was waiving, no one had threatened him to plead guilty, he had discussed the case with his attorney, and that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The court went through the full agreement to make sure that defendant understood all of the terms. After examining defendant, the court found that he had read and understood the plea agreement and was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights. Defendant then pled guilty in open court to counts 2 and 3 and admitted the prior strike conviction. Defense counsel joined in the plea, and the prosecutor accepted the plea. Defendant stipulated to the factual basis when he pled guilty. Counts 1 and 4 were dismissed pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The court then sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon term.
On March 19, 2009, defendant filed a notice of appeal in propria persona, indicating he was challenging the validity of the plea and that the appeal was “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” In his request for a certificate of probable cause, defendant wrote: “I. That a strike was permitted to be used I [sic] a non strikeable offance [sic] dating back 23 years[.] Strikes are only permissable [sic] with in [sic] a 5 yr period[.] Penal Code. [sic] [¶] II. On or about Nov 7 -08 the preciding [sic] judge ordered a psychiatric evaluation for Jimmy Gene Hancock but the results were never admitted befor [sic] the defendent [sic] was given a plea bargin [sic] at which time he states he was heavley [sic] sedated on medication.” (Capitalization omitted.) The court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
Defendant also marked the boxes indicating his appeal followed “[a] jury or court trial,” and that the appeal was based on the denial of a motion to suppress.” We note, however, there was no suppression motion or trial below.
DISCUSSION
Dependant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case and four potential arguable issues, including: 1) whether defendant’s negotiated plea was constitutionally valid; 2) whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea; 3) whether defendant’s counsel was ineffective; and 4) whether defendant was properly advised before he admitted the prior strike conviction. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P.J., MILLER, J.