Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCS200673, Timothy R. Walsh, Judge. Affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
Carlton Saunders Burnett entered a negotiated guilty plea to burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; statutory references are to the Penal Code) and fraudulently writing a check without sufficient funds (§ 476a, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to a stipulated 16-month prison term: consecutive sentences of one-third the middle term on each count, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was serving in case No. SCD211897. Burnett appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On November 9, 2005, Burnett entered a car dealership and bought a Mercedes automobile for approximately $20,000. The purchase was to be financed through a separate company. As a down payment, Burnett gave the dealer about $1,200 in cash. Burnett also wrote three postdated checks and gave them to the dealer: a $2,500 check dated November 25, 2005, and two $3,706 checks, one dated December 2005 and the other dated January 2006. All the checks were written on the same account. Burnett was supposed to give the dealer an additional $1,300 cash, but never did. The dealer deposited the $2,500 check on November 25 or 26, 2005, but the bank returned the check. The bank had closed the account on October 30, 2005, because there had been a $1,600 negative balance since mid-September. In late December the dealer asked Burnett to return the car if he was not going to pay for it.
On January 12, 2006, a police detective informed Burnett about the three checks on the closed account and told him the dealer was requesting full payment. Burnett said he had documentation that would show there was no problem. The detective gave him until January 17 to provide the documentation. On January 17 the detective received an illegible fax with a copy of what appeared to be a receipt for $1,200 or $1,300. That day, the detective suggested to Burnett that he return the car until the matter was resolved. On January 19 the detective issued a stolen vehicle report.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, (1) whether the court abused its sentencing discretion; (2) whether it erred by not awarding custody credits; (3) whether there was any violation of Burnett's right to a speedy trial; (4) whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing; (5) whether the calculation of victim restitution was correct; and (6) whether the calculation of restitution fines was correct.
We granted Burnett permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded. He contends he is innocent; his plea was coerced; he signed the change of plea form with the understanding he would receive concurrent sentences and 194 days of credit; the court stated no reasons for imposing consecutive sentences and the consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion; the sentence for writing a check without sufficient funds must be stayed (§ 654); Burnett is entitled to 194 days' custody credits; and he was denied his right to a speedy trial.
Burnett's guilty plea precludes a challenge to the underlying facts. (People v. Wallace (2004) 33 Cal.4th 738, 750.) Because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, he cannot contest the validity of the plea. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68.) Furthermore, the record shows Burnett's guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary. (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242-243.)
The plea bargain provided for a stipulated sentence of eight months on each count, to be served consecutively to one another and to the sentence in case No. SCD211897. In light of this stipulation, Burnett cannot challenge the imposition of consecutive sentences or raise a section 654 challenge. (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 384.)
Our review is limited to the record on appeal, which does not show Burnett had any reason to believe he would receive 194 days' credit. The court awarded no credits because the sentence was consecutive to the sentence Burnett was already serving in case No. SCD211897. There was no error. "Credit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed." (§ 2900.5, subd (b).)
Burnett contends there was a violation of his right to a speedy trial due to the delays between the November 2005 offense; his arrest on February 6, 2006; his placement into custody on April 6, 2009; and the August 14, 2009, sentencing. The record does not reflect precisely when the car dealer made a police report, although that apparently occurred some time between late December 2005 and January 12, 2006. Until January 19, 2006, the police attempted to resolve the dispute. The record does not reflect the date Burnett was arrested. On March 3 the complaint was filed and he was arraigned. The record does not support any claim of a delay up to that date. Nor was there any speedy trial violation during the remainder of the case. At arraignment, Burnett waived the statutory time for the preliminary hearing, which took place on July 12. The information was filed on July 21, and on July 27 Burnett was arraigned on the information. He waived statutory time for trial. There were several continuances occasioned by Burnett's changes of counsel and one delay in March and April 2009 caused by his failure to appear for a readiness hearing.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Burnett has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., O'ROURKE, J.