Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County Super. Ct. No. RIF127738. Robert George Spitzer, Judge. Affirmed.
Randall B. Bookout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.
Defendant pled guilty to committing continuous sexual abuse of a minor (Pen. Code, § 288.5), committing a forcible lewd and lascivious act on a minor (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)) and committing a lewd and lascivious act on a minor. (§ 288, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. There is no certificate of probable cause in the record before this court.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Despite many attempts, this court was unable to obtain a copy of the change of plea form. We note, however, that before accepting defendant’s plea, the trial court informed him that by pleading guilty he was giving up “all of the rights that are contained on that yellow piece of paper in front of you, including your right to a jury trial; your right to see, hear, confront, and cross-examine witnesses against you; your right to use the power of the court to bring into court any witnesses or any evidence that you think would be helpful in your own defense at no cost to you; and, most importantly, your privilege against self-incrimination. By pleading guilty, you are not remaining silent, you’re speaking, and when you do you will incriminate yourself.” Defendant said he understood this. We assume that the yellow piece of paper to which the trial court referred was the standard change of plea form used in Riverside County, which contains all the Boykin/Tahl advisements and which all defendants fill out in such a fashion as to indicate their understanding and waiver of these rights. This court was also unable to obtain People’s Exhibits 1 and 2A, which the record states is a log of a pretext call and defendant’s statements. However, since the trial court did not state during the sentencing hearing that it had considered either of those in determining the appropriate sentence (although the People have references to them in their Sentencing Statement), we conclude that having them before us is not essential to our review of this record.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, J., RICHLI, J.