Opinion
D073307
08-22-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AIREON E. BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.
Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCN378534) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael D. Washington, Judge. Affirmed. Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Aireon E. Brown pleaded guilty to robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The court suspended imposition of sentence for three years and placed him on formal probation.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. --------
Brown appeals without raising any specific claims of error. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.
II
BACKGROUND
Brown pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in exchange for a grant of probation. As the factual basis for his plea, Brown stated he "unlawfully by means of force and fear took [a] cell phone from the immediate [presence] of another."
After the court accepted Brown's guilty plea, the People moved to dismiss a second count of robbery and a count of false imprisonment by violence, menace, fraud, or deceit (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)). The court granted the motion.
At the sentencing hearing, the court confirmed Brown had reviewed the probation officer's report and recommendations and had no questions about them. The court then followed the report's recommendation, suspending imposition of sentence for three years and placing Brown on formal probation. The court conditioned Brown's probation on him serving 85 days in jail, which the court offset with 85 days of presentence custody credit. The court imposed numerous other conditions, fines, and fees. Brown did not object to and, instead, expressly accepted the conditions, fines, and fees. The court gave Brown credit for time served against the largest of the fines.
Brown subsequently requested a certificate of probable cause on the grounds he did not want to be on probation and he did not want to have a felony record. The court denied the request.
III
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. The brief presents no claims of error, but requests this court independently review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. The brief identified two possible issues: (1) whether Brown's plea was constitutionally valid (citing Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122), and (2) whether the constitutionality of Brown's plea is cognizable without a certificate of probable cause (citing § 1237.5 and People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68).
We provided Brown an opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He did not do so.
We have independently reviewed the record as requested and considered the possible issues identified in the brief. We conclude there are no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We further conclude Brown has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, J. AARON, J.