Opinion
G039732
7-30-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WESLEY BRANDON HOLLIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Anita P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published
1. Introduction
Wesley Brandon Hollis filed a notice of appeal after the trial court accepted his guilty plea to three counts of second degree burglary and three counts of forgery. The trial court sentenced Hollis to 16 months in prison, in accordance with the plea agreement. Hollis requested and was denied a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent Hollis on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders ), appointed counsel suggested we consider two issues: (1) whether Holliss guilty plea was constitutionally valid and (2) whether issues related to the validity of the plea can be asserted on direct appeal after the trial court denied Holliss request for a certificate of probable cause.
Hollis was given 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf. We have not received anything from him.
We have examined the entire record and counsels Wende/Anders brief, and find no arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.
2. Facts and Proceedings in the Trial Court
An amended felony complaint, filed June 28, 2007, charged Hollis as follows: counts 1, 4, 6, and 8—second degree burglary under Penal Code sections 459 and 460, subdivision (b); counts 2, 5, 7, and 9—forgery under Penal Code section 470, subdivision (d); count 3—forgery under Penal Code section 470, subdivision (b); count 10—forgery under Penal Code section 470, subdivision (a); and count 11—forging an access card under Penal Code section 484f, subdivision (a). The complaint also alleged Hollis had a prison prior within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On November 16, 2007, Hollis pleaded guilty to counts 1 through 6. The court dismissed the remaining counts on the prosecutions motion. The plea form signed by Hollis included the following as the factual basis for the guilty plea: "In Orange County, California, on June 7, 2007 I wilfully and unlawfully wrote fraudulent travelers checks and signed them, passing them with intent to defraud at the businesses of Barnes and Noble, Cheesecake Factory, Kohls, and Michaels passing 3 fraudulent checks and entering the businesses of Kohls and Barnes and Noble with intent to commit a felony, and possessing 12 additional signed and completed checks with the intent to defraud others." The plea form reflects Holliss understanding the court would sentence him to 16 months in prison, which would be increased to four years if he failed to appear in court on the date ordered.
The trial court found "a knowing, intelligent understanding of the consequences, the penalties and punishments associated with the plea" and "a factual basis for the entry of the plea based on each of the defendants voluntary pleas of guilty as to the charges in the complaint in the guilty plea." The court sentenced Hollis to 16 months in prison, the low term, on count 1, and stayed sentence on counts 2 through 6. Hollis waived time served credits, and none were awarded.
Hollis filed a notice of appeal on December 24, 2007. On the same date he also filed a request for a certificate of probable cause, stating: "I have been using drugs since the age of 16. I am currently drug free but do not always think and reason with a clear and lucid mind. Hence I plead[ed] to a felony when the charge clearly should have been a misdemeanor. My lawyer was ineffective in representing me." The trial court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause on December 31, 2007.
3. Analysis of Potential Issues Raised in Counsels Wende/Anders Brief
Appointed counsel suggests two possible issues: (1) "Is appellants guilty plea constitutionally valid?" and (2) "Can issues related to the pleas validity be raised on direct appeal?" Neither possible issue has merit.
As to the first issue, the record establishes that Holliss plea fully complied with the mandates of In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 and Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238. The record shows the trial court noted Hollis was hesitant in responding to the courts questions, and specifically asked him whether he had any questions or anything to say before accepting his plea. Hollis replied, "[n]o." The court stated it wanted to make sure Hollis made his plea willingly and understood the plea form, and asked him again if he wanted to add anything. Hollis again replied, "[n]o."
As to the second issue, the request for a certificate of probable cause shows that Hollis is challenging the validity of his plea—either on the ground he did not make his plea knowingly, willingly, and with the understanding of its consequences, or on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hollis cannot on direct appeal raise issues related to the pleas validity because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.5. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-76.)
We have examined the entire record and have found no other potential issues. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
4. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
ARONSON, J.