Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. BF114078A, Lee P. Felice, Judge.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.
Jeannine Brown (Jeannine) was married to appellant, Evan William Brown, in 1996 and had a son named Tanner with him. In 2000, the couple separated. In October 2005, Jeannine obtained a restraining order against Brown because Brown was making harassing phone calls to her, stalking her, and leaving letters at her house and on her car. In one letter to Jeannine, Brown wrote, “[E]very whore gets what they deserve, and you’ll be getting yours.” Thereafter, Brown violated the restraining order by waiting for her in the parking lot of the daycare center Tanner attended, waiting in a parking lot near the entrance to Jeannine’s apartment complex to see her come and go, and showing up in the parking lot of the business where she worked. Brown’s contacts with Jeannine made her scared of him and caused her to worry about Tanner.
On March 23, 2006, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Brown with felony stalking in violation of a restraining order (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)), and two misdemeanors, contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)), and making annoying phone calls (§ 653m, subd. (b)).
Following a preliminary hearing on April 13, 2006, Brown was held to answer on all three counts.
On May 19, 2006, Brown filed a motion to dismiss the count of making a threat in violation of a restraining order alleging that the preliminary hearing evidence failed to show that Brown made a credible threat.
On May 31, 2006, the court denied the motion.
On July 14, 2006, Brown pled no contest to the misdemeanor contempt count on condition that the court would continue the sentencing hearing 90 days and if Brown did not have any further law violations, the court would sentence him to no more than 90 days’ local time.
On October 26, 2006, the court placed Brown on summary probation and ordered him to serve 90 days in local custody.
Brown’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) However, in a letter filed on April 26, 2007, Brown appears to challenge the validity of his plea through his contentions that his case was prejudiced by (1) his defense counsel’s failure to obtain, review, or discuss the orders issued in his divorce case with the victim and (2) the trial court’s failure to follow the court communication protocols for domestic violence and child custody cases contained in California Rules of Court, rule 5.500 and Chapter IX of the Superior Court of Kern County, Uniform Rules of Court. Brown’s contentions are not cognizable on appeal because they challenge the validity of his plea and he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause as required by Penal Code section 1237.5. They are also not cognizable because they rely upon information outside the record. (People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 917, fn. 12 [“[t]he scope of an appeal is, of course, limited to the record of the proceedings below”].) Further, following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
In his notice of appeal, Brown asks this court to stay the execution of his sentencing pending the resolution of his appeal. This request is denied.