Opinion
D049752
5-2-2007
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD JOSEPH KING, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Ronald Joseph King entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). The court denied a motion to strike the prior strike and sentenced King to 32 months in prison: double the 16-month lower term for possessing a controlled substance with a prior strike. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576), the following occurred. On June 3, 2006, San Diego police officers stopped to talk with three people sitting on the curb in the 700 block of 11th Street. An officer found .34 grams of cocaine base in Kings pocket. King entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts in greater detail.
After the court imposed sentence, King asked if he could address the court. The court responded, "No. The sentencing hearing is over."
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the 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 King waived his right to appeal; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Kings request to speak to the court following imposition of sentence.
We granted King permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, discloses no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented King on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.