Opinion
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. VA018829, Michael Schuur, Temporary Judge.
David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BOLAND, J.
Damon Lamont Williams appeals from a judgment entered after conviction following his 1993 negotiated guilty plea to second degree robbery. In accordance with the plea agreement, appellant was sentenced to three years in prison. His sentence was suspended, and he was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). According to a 1999 letter from the CRC to the trial court, appellant was released and returned three times before he was excluded from the program due to a new felony conviction in Los Angeles Superior Court Case number SA033279, for which he received a prison sentence. The trial court failed to act promptly upon the letter as it should have under Welfare & Institutions Code section 3053, subdivision (b).
In December 2004, the trial court calendared this case for sentencing or further proceedings in response to a letter written by appellant to the court. After numerous continuances, the court finally conducted a hearing on September 15, 2006. Appellant asked the court to dismiss the case on the ground he had served two years two months at CRC and additional time on outpatient parole. The court concluded it had no authority to dismiss the case and sentenced appellant to three years in prison. It found, however, that appellant’s credits exceeded the length of the sentence and ordered him released on this case. It appears that appellant was still serving the sentence for his subsequent conviction.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On June 28, 2007, we advised appellant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant filed a supplemental brief that appears to raise three contentions.
Appellant first attempts to challenge his robbery conviction on the ground he did not participate in the robbery. However, appellant’s guilty plea constituted an admission of every element of the charged offense. (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1177.) He therefore cannot challenge the sufficiency of evidence or factual basis for the plea.
Appellant next appears to argue that he was entitled to additional credit. This point is moot, however, as appellant has no remaining custody time on this case. If the court miscalculated the credits, it did not prejudice appellant.
Finally, appellant seemingly argues that his robbery conviction should not be considered a strike because his guilty plea was entered before the enactment of the Three Strikes law. He is wrong. (People v. Reed (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1608, 1611.) Moreover, the robbery conviction was the commitment offense, not a strike, in the context of the present case. Therefore, the Three Strikes law was not implicated.
To the extent appellant attempts to reassert the argument he made in the trial court - that the present case should have been dismissed so that it did not constitute a strike - appellant is also mistaken. Following the successful completion of a CRC commitment, the trial court may dismiss in the interests of justice if it receives a certificate from the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority stating that a defendant who was committed to the CRC has abstained from the use of narcotics for a particular period of time, met all of the conditions of his release, and should be discharged from the program. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3200, subdivision (b).) No certificate was issued for appellant, probably due to his failure to successfully complete the program. Instead, he was terminated from it because he was convicted of a new felony and sentenced to prison. Accordingly, the trial court correctly concluded it had no authority to dismiss the case.
We have examined the entire record and appellant’s contentions, and have not found any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: COOPER, P. J. FLIER, J.