Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. No. FC38288
Jones, P.J.
Joseph Lawrence Clark appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court revoked his probation. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
In December 1994, appellant pleaded “no contest” to one count of second degree robbery, (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and one count of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)). The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation.
All further section references will be to the Penal Code.
In 1996, appellant was convicted in San Diego on two counts of second degree robbery. Based in part on the convictions that he suffered in this case, the court sentenced appellant to 27 years in prison.
In 2006, authorities moved to revoke appellant’s probation based on his San Diego conviction.
Appellant filed two motions to withdraw his 1996 plea. The trial court denied both motions. The court then conducted a revocation hearing, found appellant had violated probation, and revoked his probation. Subsequently, the court sentenced appellant to three years, eight months on his 1996 convictions, and ordered those sentences to be served concurrently to appellant’s sentence in the San Diego case. This appeal followed.
We have reviewed the record and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The parties did not seriously dispute that appellant had violated his probation. Indeed, defense counsel admitted appellant was then serving a 27-year prison sentence. (Cf. People v. Martin (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 482, 486-487.) The court correctly denied appellant’s motions to withdraw his guilty plea. (See People v. Miranda (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1133-1134.) We see no error in the sentence. Appellant was represented by adequate counsel.
We conclude there were no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Needham, J., Stevens, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.