Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF147735. Jeffrey J. Prevost, Judge.
Anita P. Job, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Gaut J.
Defendant, Joseph Henry Peterson, appeals from the prison term imposed pursuant to a plea bargain with a stipulated sentence.
BACKGROUND
Because the defendant pled guilty before the preliminary hearing, and because the factual basis for his plea was his admission, at the time of the plea, that he did the things he was charged with committing, the facts of the offense are omitted. On December 24, 2008, defendant was charged with two counts of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle of another, having been previously convicted of that offense (Pen.Code, § 666.5, subd. (a), counts 1, 2), and one count of possessing methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), count 3.) The complaint further alleged that defendant had been previously convicted of a felony and served a prison term on three occasions (prison priors) (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and one prior serious or violent felony conviction (Strike). (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).)
On January 8, 2009, at the time set for the preliminary hearing, defendant changed his plea pursuant to a plea bargain. Under the plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1 (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)), admitted the Strike prior, and admitted one prison prior, in return for a stipulated sentence of five years in state prison, to be served concurrent with any parole violation and in any penal institution. The court accepted the change of plea, and sentenced defendant forthwith to five years in state prison (low term of two years, doubled due to the Strike, plus one year for one prison prior), and recommended placement at a fire camp. On February 5, 2009, defendant appealed from the sentence.
On March 11, 2009, another notice of appeal was filed challenging both the sentence and the validity of the guilty plea. Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause claiming he did not know what he was signing and he was led to believe the sentence he would be ordered to serve would be 16 months less than the term he received. The trial court denied the request for the certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant 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. 1396, 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 defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so, providing us with a supplemental brief, along with two letter briefs. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record.
In his supplemental brief filed on July 17, 2009, defendant claims his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to make a motion to strike the Strikes allegation. (Referring to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 504.) Because the admission of the Strike allegation was an integral part of the plea agreement and the stipulated sentence, defendant’s counsel was prohibited from making such a motion. Any attempt to strike the Strike would have constituted a breach of the plea agreement and would have exposed the defendant to potentially greater penalties.
In defendant’s separate letter brief, filed on June 19, 2009, defendant claims he was led to believe the sentence he would receive was 16 months less than the five-year term he received. We disagree for two reasons: (1) The plea agreement, executed by defendant, expressly provides for a sentence of five years in state prison showing defendant was fully aware of the sentence he was agreeing to; and (2) defendant’s claim appears to be based on the mistaken belief that the low term for a violation of Penal Code section 666.5, subdivision (a) is 16 months. To the contrary, the low term for the crime is two years in state prison. (§ 666.5, subd. (a).) Furthermore, because the length of the sentence was an integral part of the plea agreement, any challenge to the sentence is a challenge to the guilty plea, which requires a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 84.) Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, so he may not challenge the validity of his plea agreement. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
In the June 19, 2009, letter brief, defendant claims his plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because he was not advised he would have to serve 80 percent of his sentence. The credit-limiting provision of the Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (c)(5)) is a collateral consequence of the plea, and a defendant is not entitled to have his plea set aside on appeal on the grounds the trial court (or counsel) failed to advise a defendant of the limitation of conduct credits resulting from the admission of a Strike. (People v. Barella (1999) 20 Cal.4th 261, 272.)
Finally, in his first amended supplemental brief filed on July 22, 2009, defendant claims he was sentenced to serve his term at a fire camp but that this order has been violated (denied). The record shows that the trial court agreed to recommend placement at a fire camp. There was no promise to commit defendant to a fire camp. In fact, a trial court lacks authority to compel the Department of Corrections to make any specific placement. (Pen. Code, § 4116 [prohibiting direct commitment by a court to any industrial farm or camp].)
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. Defendant was effectively represented by counsel in the trial court as well as on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Ramirez, P. J., Hollenhorst, J.