Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Ventura No. 2009009160, James P. Cloninger, Judge
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
COFFEE, J.
Thomas Robert Young appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to (1) transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)); (2) evading an officer with willful disregard for safety (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); and 3) possession of firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). He admitted that he committed the first count while personally armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)), and that he suffered two prior narcotics convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)). In exchange for his plea, the prosecutor dismissed additional counts for carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1)), being a felon in possession of tear gas (Pen. Code, § 12403.7, subd. (a)) and possession of a stun gun with prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 12651, subd. (a)). The trial court struck allegations that appellant suffered five other prior narcotic convictions, numerous prior prison terms and numerous prior felony convictions. The court sentenced appellant to an agreed term of 11 years in state prison
Appellant drove a car with expired registration. An officer attempted to detain him, but appellant sped away. Appellant eventually lost control of the car and crashed it. Upon arrest, officers found $1,633 in his pocket, a baggie of methamphetamine in his hand, and a pistol, a stun gun and a can of tear gas in the car.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that this court independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Appellant submitted a supplemental letter brief in which he attacks the judgment on the ground that his sentence was enhanced with unlawful prior convictions. Appellant contends that three of the prior convictions were unlawful because in those cases he was not advised, before entering his plea, that the resulting convictions would trigger sentencing enhancements in future cases such as this one. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c).)
Appellant's argument is foreclosed by his guilty plea in this case in which he admitted the validity of all seven of the alleged prior narcotic convictions. The existence of a certificate of probable cause does not widen the scope of review to include noncognizable issues. (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1178.) Moreover, increased penalties for future convictions are collateral consequences of a plea of which a defendant need not be advised. (People v. Wohl (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 270, 275; People v. Sweet (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 78, 85.)
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., YEGAN, J.