Opinion
F041448.
7-8-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY LEE BOGGS, Defendant and Appellant.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Carlos A. Martinez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Anthony Boggs pled no contest to two counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 1, 5). The court imposed an aggregate term of 10 years, consisting of the 8-year upper term on count 1 and 2 years on count 5, representing one-third of the midterm for that offense. Appellant did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
Appellants 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, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.)
Appellant, in response to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing, has submitted a document in which he argues, as best we can determine, that this court should reduce his sentence because (1) other persons convicted of similar crimes have received lesser sentences and (2) appellants trial counsel falsely represented to him that he would receive probation and appellant entered his no contest plea in reliance on that misrepresentation.
The first contention is without merit. It is in essence a claim that the court abused its discretion in imposing the 10-year aggregate term. That term, however, was neither arbitrary nor irrational and, indeed, was within the limit to which appellant agreed. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion. (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72, 120 Cal. Rptr. 577, 534 P.2d 65 [the court does not abuse its sentencing discretion if sentence "[does not] exceed[] the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered"].)
Appellants second contention is, in effect a challenge to the validity of the plea. Therefore, because the court did not issue a certificate of probable cause, it is not cognizable on this appeal. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75-76, 913 P.2d 1061.)
Upon independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.