Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF131658, Jeffrey J. Prevost, Judge.
Amanda F. Benedict, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Gaut, J.
George Craig Pappas (Pappas) appeals following a guilty plea for which he received concurrent stipulated terms of one year four months, each, on two felony drug possession counts (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), and one count of delaying an officer in the discharge of his duty (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), for which he received another concurrent sentence of 180 days. He challenges the validity of he plea.
1. Background
Three separate accusatory pleadings were consolidated into an amended information alleging criminal violations occurring on three separate occasions. The charges included possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a), count 1), possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5, count 2), resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1), count 3), possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364 [misdemeanor], count 4), and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a) [misdemeanor], count 5). Pappas was on Proposition 36 drug probation in another case when he committed the offenses alleged, so a violation of probation was alleged.
The proceedings for revocation of probation trailed the current offenses throughout this case.
On April 13, 2007, after jury voir dire and in limine motions were heard, but before the jury was sworn, a settlement was reached, and count 2 was amended to allege straight possession of cocaine as a lesser offense included within the charge of possession for sale of cocaine. Pappas pled guilty to counts 1, 2, and 3 of the newly amended information, and admitted the violation of probation in return for dismissal of counts 4 and 5 (the two misdemeanors), and a stipulated sentence of one year four months. The agreement further provided that the terms for all counts would run concurrent to each other and that the sentence on this case would run concurrent with another case, RIF131647.
Pappas requested an immediate sentence and waived his right to a probation report. In accordance with the terms of the plea bargain, the court committed Pappas to state prison for one year four months, with credit for 250 days actually served and 124 days conduct credit, for a total of 374 days presentence credit. The court directed that all terms run concurrent with each other, and with the outstanding felony matter in Case No. RIF131647. Counts 4 and 5 were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. He was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), while a parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount was suspended unless parole is revoked. (Pen. Code, § 1202.45.) Pappas was also ordered to pay a booking fee in the amount of $100, and a court security fee in the amount of $20. (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).)
On May 31, 2007, a hearing was held on a motion to withdraw the plea, but Pappas withdrew this motion. On June 13, 2007, Pappas filed a notice of appeal following a plea of guilty, challenging the validity of the plea, and requesting a certificate of probable cause. The request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
No written motion is included in the appellate record.
2. Discussion
At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. 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. 1386, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered appellant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. First, the record shows appellant was adequately advised of the rights being waived and the consequences of pleading guilty. There is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Further, the parties stipulated that the police reports established a factual basis for the plea, satisfying that legal requirement. (See People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 443-444.) The fact he may have been advised that he might receive a greater sentence if he continued with the jury trial and lost does not render his plea any less voluntary. He made a voluntary decision to accept a plea bargain which limited his prison exposure, to his advantage. (Brady v. United States (1970) 397 U.S. 742, 749-752 [90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747].) His plea was constitutionally valid.
We also reviewed the trial court’s discretionary denial of Pappas’s motion to have his counsel relieved at the commencement of the trial. (Ref. People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The in camera proceedings reveal the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, after giving Pappas a full opportunity to explain his concerns about the handling of his case.
We also reviewed the request for a certificate of probable cause to determine if the trial court abused its discretion in denying its issuance. The denial of a certificate of probable cause is not appealable. (People v. Castelan (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1187-1188.) In any event, there was no abuse of discretion where the request does not establish any legal, constitutional or jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to the entry of the plea of guilty.
We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
3. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKinster Acting P. J. King J.