People v. Coffelt

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES MUNOZ COFFELT, Defendant…

Court: Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.

Date published: Jul 9, 2003

D041238 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 9, 2003)

Opinion

D041238.

7-9-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES MUNOZ COFFELT, Defendant and Appellant.

Benke

James Munoz Coffelt entered a negotiated guilty plea to robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211; People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 91 Cal. Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409.) The court denied Coffelts motion to withdraw the guilty plea and sentenced him to prison for a stipulated five years, the upper term, concurrent with the term in an unrelated case upon which the court revoked probation. The court denied a request for a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31(d).) Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. 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, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether sufficient evidence supports the judgment; (2) whether Coffelts trial counsel provided effective assistance; (3) whether the trial court abused is discretion in denying Coffelts motion to withdraw the guilty plea; and (4) whether the trial court abused is discretion in denying Coffelts request for a certificate of probable cause.

We granted Coffelt permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and the record in D040952, of which we take judicial notice, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Coffelt on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J., and OROURKE, J. --------------- Notes: Because Coffelt entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693, 108 Cal. Rptr. 809, 511 P.2d 1161.) We need not recite the facts.