Opinion
D075063
05-24-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ADREW RAINEY, Defendant and Appellant.
Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCN389079) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed. Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael Andrew Rainey entered into a plea agreement, under the terms of which he ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted a prior violation within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(1). The balance of the charges and allegations were dismissed. The parties also stipulated to a two-year term in local prison under section 1170, subdivision (h). The court imposed the stipulated sentence.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Rainey filed a timely notice of appeal; however, he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). The notice of appeal indicated Rainey was appealing from the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5.
Rainey did not file a motion to suppress evidence in the trial court. --------
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has been unable to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandate by Wende. We offered Rainey the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel recognizes that without a certificate of probable cause Rainey cannot challenge his guilty plea which includes a stipulated sentence. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68; § 1237.5.) Also, the absence of a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 means Rainey cannot challenge his plea on the basis of denial of such motion.
In addition to asking this court to review the record for error as required by Wende, counsel has identified a possible, but not arguable issue for our consideration as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744-745 (Anders). The possible issue is whether the guilty plea failed to comply with Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Rainey on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. O'ROURKE, J.