Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. MF008414A, Cory Woodward, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Cornell, A.P.J., Hill, J., and Kane, J.
On September 10, 2008, appellant Jerardo Barrios, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to possession of a weapon by a person confined in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)) and admitted a “strike” allegation. On October 7, 2008, the court denied appellant’s request to strike his strike conviction and imposed a four-year prison term, consisting of the two-year lower term on the instant offense, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The court ordered that term to run consecutively to the 22-year term appellant was serving at the time of the instant offense.
We use the terms “strike” and “strike conviction” as synonyms for “prior felony conviction” within the meaning of the “three strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law.
On November 14, 2008, appellant requested a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). On November 17, 2008, the court granted that request.
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.
FACTS
The report of the probation officer indicates that appellant, upon his arrival at New Folsom State Prison, was found to be in possession of “an inmate manufactured handcuff key, one razor blade from a disposable razor, one hypodermic syringe needle, one manufactured sewing needle and pieces of pencil lead of various colors.”
DISCUSSION
Appellant states in his notice of appeal that his appeal challenges the validity of his plea. However, nowhere in the record, including in his request for a certificate of probable cause, does he provide any support for such a challenge. In the “Request for a Certificate of Probable Cause” (unnecessary capitalization omitted) section of his notice of appeal, he asserts, as best we can determine, that the court abused its discretion in imposing a four-year consecutive term.
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that there was no sentencing error and that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.