Opinion
A113906
12-13-2006
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL SEAN SHAFFER, Defendant and Appellant.
Appellant Michael Sean Shaffer pled guilty in case No. CR906719-A to residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) (count 1), grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) (count 5), and vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) (count 6). Pursuant to the negotiated disposition, the remaining felony counts were dismissed. At sentencing on May 15, 2006, probation was denied and appellant was sentenced to the midterm of four years on count 1, the midterm of two years on count 5, and the midterm of two years on count 6. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Thereafter, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 for commitment and treatment of appellant at the California Rehabilitation Center as a narcotics addict. On July 28, 2006, the trial court entered the section 3051 commitment.
The facts of the underlying crimes are not in issue as appellant pled guilty.
Appellants counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and conclude that there are no arguable issues.
Appellants counsel informed appellant of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. No supplemental brief was filed by appellant.
Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. A notice of appeal was filed and a certificate of probable cause obtained alleging that the trial court erred in denying appellants motion to withdraw plea. Appellant claimed that he had been promised probation by his trial attorney. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea, his trial attorney testified that no such promise was made and the trial court found, based on the record, that "defendant did not enter this plea based on a promise that he would get probation. Its abundantly clear that what sentence he would get would be left up to the sentencing hearing after the probation report." Appellants plea was validly entered and we find no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw plea. There was no sentencing error.
Judgment affirmed.
We concur:
RUVOLO, P.J.
SEPULVEDA, J.