Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF1000056. Roger A. Luebs, Judge.
Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI J.
Defendant John Swayzer pleaded guilty and was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain. His appointed appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief. We find no error. Hence, we will affirm.
A Wende brief raises no particular appellate contention, but asks the court to review the record for error independently. (See generally People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript, which, it was stipulated, provided the factual basis for defendant’s guilty plea.
Between August and September 2009, defendant took the female victim to a strip club named Starz in Gardena approximately eight times. While they were there, he received money from various men, then ordered the victim to go into a bathroom and have sex with them, which she did.
In November 2009, the father of defendant’s girlfriend let the girlfriend and defendant borrow his car. When he got it back, the handgun that he kept under the seat was missing. In January 2010, a sheriff’s deputy found the gun inside a purse in a closet in an apartment in Moreno Valley. A female occupant of the apartment stated that the gun belonged to defendant. On defendant’s MySpace page, there was a photo of him holding the gun. Defendant had previously been convicted of a felony.
II
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2011, pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h) and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1).) In exchange, one count of pandering (Pen. Code, § 266i), two counts of aggravated assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and two prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) were dismissed.
On the date originally set for sentencing, defense counsel indicated that defendant wanted new counsel appointed for the purpose of filing a motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court denied the request for new counsel, but it continued the sentencing hearing to allow defense counsel time to file a written motion to withdraw the plea.
In February 2011, at the continued hearing, defense counsel reported that she had found no grounds for a motion to withdraw the plea. Defendant then made a Marsden motion. After holding a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.
A “Marsden motion” is a motion to discharge existing appointed counsel, based on ineffective assistance, and to appoint new counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.)
It proceeded to impose the sentence stipulated by the plea bargain — three years (the lower term) for pimping, plus eight months (one-third the midterm) for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The usual fines and fees were imposed. Defendant was awarded presentence custody credit.
The trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause, which specified three contentions:
1. The trial court erred by refusing to appoint new counsel for purposes of a motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
2. The trial court erred by denying defendant’s Marsden motion.
3. “... People v. Brown (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 356 was wrongly decided.” (Italics added.)
Defendant appealed. At his request, this court appointed appellate counsel for him. As already noted, his appellate counsel filed a Wende brief, which stated that she had considered the three issues specified in the certificate of probable cause (among others) but found no arguable issues.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
III
DISCUSSION
Defendant was not entitled to the appointment of new counsel for purposes of a motion to withdraw the plea because he made no showing that his appointed counsel had rendered ineffective assistance, and because he expressly conceded that he did not want to “fire” his appointed counsel.
Defendant’s Marsden motion was not well taken because the trial court held a full hearing and heard all of his complaints, but, once again, he made no showing that his appointed counsel had rendered ineffective assistance.
Defendant’s contention that People v. Brown, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th 356 was wrongly decided is moot. Brown held that a defendant who has pleaded guilty must obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to argue, on appeal, that the trial court erred by refusing to appoint new counsel for purpose of filing a motion to withdraw the plea. (Id. at p. 361.) In this case, the trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.
We recognize that our review is not limited to the particular issues listed in defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1177-1180.) However, our independent review of the entire record has not revealed any other arguable issues.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P.J., KING J.