Opinion
A152613
08-23-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSHUA STEVEN MOORE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCKCRCR1685284)
Joshua Moore appeals following his admitted probation violation, revocation hearing and sentencing. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Moore entered a no contest plea to being an accessory to the sale of methamphetamine. A single count of possession of methamphetamine for sale and several enhancement allegations were dismissed. He was placed on probation with the imposition of sentence suspended. After he admitted to the third violation of his probation within 12 months, the court imposed sentence. The court imposed a mid-term prison sentence of two years, with credit for time served and fines and fees in lawful measure.
DISCUSSION
In a request for certificate of probable cause, Moore seemed to argue that he was not eligible for his sentence to be served in state prison under the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex.Sess.2011-2012, ch. 12, § 1; Pen.Code, § 1170, subd. (h)). Although the request was not ruled upon by the trial court, we will address the issue because a certificate of probable cause is unnecessary to address matters arising after entry of a no-contest or guilty plea. (See People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) Moore is incorrect. His prior conviction for first-degree burglary in 2006 made him prison eligible, and considering his prior record for purposes of his prison eligibility did not violate the terms of his plea. (See Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(3).)
Moore's counsel has represented that he advised Moore of his intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of Moore's right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so. Moore has also been advised of his right to request that his appellate counsel be relieved.
Our full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Siggins, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Pollak, J. /s/_________
Jenkins, J.