Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. SA056969, Katherine Mader, Judge.
Alan Siraco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
PERLUSS, P. J.
Pedro Lavin Rivera and a confederate, apprehended for robbing six banks in Los Angeles County, were charged by information with 12 counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). As to each count the information specially alleged one or more firearm-use enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b)). Rivera pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.
Rivera was originally represented by appointed counsel, but he asserted his Sixth Amendment right under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562] to represent himself on March 24, 2006; and the trial court granted his request.
On August 22, 2006 Rivera waived his right to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of no contest to five counts of second degree robbery (counts 1 through 3, 5 and 6), a serious felony (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)), and admitted the accompanying firearm-use enhancements (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). The plea agreement provided Rivera would be sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 29 years. The trial court found the plea was freely and voluntarily entered, and there was a factual basis for the plea.
After some discussion, at the sentencing hearing on April 27, 2007, the prosecutor agreed to a one-year reduction in Rivera’s negotiated sentence. Pursuant to this new agreement, the trial court imposed an aggregate state prison term of 28 years. Rivera received presentence custody credit of 765 days (665 actual days and 100 days of conduct credit). The trial court ordered Rivera to pay a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. Rivera was also ordered to make restitution in the amount of $73,894 to the victims (banks) named in counts 2 and 6 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f). The remaining charges and special allegations were dismissed on the prosecutor’s motion.
Appellate counsel has requested the trial court recalculate Rivera’s presentence custody credit, contending he is entitled to three additional days.
We appointed counsel to represent Rivera on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On October 29, 2007 we advised Rivera he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
Rivera’s handwritten notice of appeal did not request a certificate of probable cause, and no certificate was obtained. Nor did Rivera indicate in his notice of appeal he was raising noncertificate issues. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) In fact, in this case it is difficult to envision any appealable issues not affecting the validity of Rivera’s plea because no motion to suppress evidence was filed and the sentence imposed was part of the negotiated plea agreement. Although it would be entirely proper for us to deem the notice of appeal inoperable and to dismiss the appeal (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; see People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 769-771), we have nonetheless examined the entire record and are satisfied Rivera’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, J. ZELON, J.