Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County No. 1415767 Linda A. McFadden, Judge.
Gregory Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.
On March 12, 2010, a complaint was filed alleging that appellant, Jacob Russell Spurlin, committed the following offenses: willfully driving a vehicle on the wrong side of the road during flight from a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.4, subd. (a); count 1); reckless driving while fleeing from a pursuing police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 2); and driving while driving privilege suspended or revoked (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a); count 3). On April 5, appellant, pursuant to a plea agreement ― terms of which included that appellant would be sentenced to 16 months in prison and the remaining counts would be dismissed ― pled guilty to count 2. Also on April 5, the court dismissed the remaining counts and imposed a prison term of 16 months.
All references to dates of events are to dates in 2010.
On May 24, at a hearing at which appellant’s trial counsel appeared but appellant did not appear, the court stated that appellant “wrote to the Court saying he wants to withdraw his plea because he... believed that he was going to be doing only 35 percent of his time.” The court denied appellant’s request to withdraw his plea on the ground that it was made after judgment and was therefore untimely. The court also noted that at the time appellant entered his plea, appellant stated “there were no further promises made to him....”
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a request for certificate of probable cause, dated May 20. On June 7, the court denied the request for certificate of probable cause and ordered that the notice of appeal be deemed filed June 4.
On July 13, this court issued an order in which it stated the notice of appeal would be deemed “operable, but limited to challenging ‘the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.’”
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief, which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
Appellant did submit a letter, dated October 21, informing this court that the record on appeal did not include the minute order of the May 24 hearing at which the court denied appellant’s request that he be allowed to withdraw his plea. On December 9, this court granted appellant’s motion to augment the record, filed November 22, to include that minute order and a reporter’s transcript of the May 24 hearing.
Our factual statement is taken from the prosecutor’s recitation of the factual basis for appellant’s plea at the April 5 proceeding at which appellant entered his plea.
On March 10, a California Highway Patrol Officer saw a motorcycle, driven by appellant, fail to stop at a red light. The officer gave chase and, during a pursuit covering approximately 2.5 miles, appellant failed to stop at two more red lights and drove on the wrong side of the road, causing two drivers to “take evasive actions....”
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.