Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 08F2208
RAYE, J.Charged with 44 counts of offenses against his daughter over an eight-year period, defendant Justin Michael Langston entered into a negotiated settlement whereby he pled no contest to five counts of forcible lewd acts with a child under 14 years of age, two counts of nonforcible lewd acts with a child under 14 years of age, and one count of furnishing marijuana to a minor, in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 35 years 8 months and the dismissal of the remaining charges.
Per the agreement, defendant was sentenced to state prison for 35 years 8 months. The court also imposed two restitution fines of $7,000 in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, and reserved victim restitution for a later determination.
The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript because there is no probation report, the defendant having waived such and requested immediate sentencing.
Defendant told Shasta County Sheriff’s Deputy Lisa Shearman, who was investigating defendant’s 13-year-old daughter’s complaint that defendant had been sexually abusing her, that he had begun having oral sex and sexual intercourse with his daughter when she was 10 years old and continued until December 2007. Defendant also admitted giving his daughter marijuana.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief and he has done so.
In his supplemental brief, defendant requests that this court “grant [his] appointed counsel, Robert Navarro, permission to either: 1) seek a second certificate of probable cause from the Superior Court; 2) file a petition for writ of mandate in this Court to have the Superior Court’s denial of the Certificate of Probable Cause reviewed; or 3) file a petition for habeas corpus.”
The certificate of probable cause is necessary, defendant recognizes, because each of the issues he wants raised, namely, that he was mentally incompetent when his plea was entered, his plea was induced by misrepresentations of a fundamental nature, and he was inadequately warned of the effect of a guilty plea on the right to appeal, go to the validity of his plea. As to the necessity of his obtaining a certificate of probable cause to raise these issues, defendant is correct. (See Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) However, he makes no argument whatsoever or citation to the record supporting the proposed challenges to his plea. Additionally, our review of the entire record discloses no such support. Defendant’s requests in his supplemental brief are denied.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P. J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.