Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County Super. Ct. Nos. SWF17429, SWF14692 & SWF17575. James T. Warren, Judge. Affirmed.
Michelle Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J.
In three separate cases, defendant and appellant Steven Cogdill was charged with one count of felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), case No. SWF014692), assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily harm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), case No. SWF017575), and another count of felony possession of methamphetamine, as well as one count of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. (§§ 11377, subds. (a) & (b), case No. SWF017429.) Defendant pled guilty, pursuant to plea agreements, in all three cases. The parties stipulated that he would receive a total term of three years in state prison, which consisted of three years for case number SWF017575, plus the terms on the other two cases to run concurrent. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea in case number SWF017575. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to the stipulated three-year term.
All further statutory references will be to the Health and Safety Code, unless otherwise noted.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal for all three cases, challenging “the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea” and the validity of the pleas. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2005, defendant was charged with one count of felony possession of methamphetamine, in case number SWF014692. (§ 11377, subd. (a).) It was alleged that he had served two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant pled guilty and admitted one prison prior. He signed a plea agreement and was questioned in open court before pleading guilty. The court found that defendant’s plea was free and voluntary, and that defendant knew and understood his constitutional rights, the nature of the charge, and the consequences of the plea. The court also found a factual basis for the plea, and then placed defendant on probation for three years.
On August 2, 2006, defendant was charged with one count of assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily harm, in case number SWF017575. It was alleged that defendant had served two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and that he had violated his probation in case number SWF014692. That same day, defendant was charged with one count of felony possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a)) and one count of misdemeanor possession of marijuana, in case number SWF017429. (§ 11357, subd. (b).) It was also alleged that defendant had violated his probation in case number SWF014692.
On August 14, 2006, defendant admitted the probation violation, and pled guilty in case numbers SWF017575 and SWF017429. Defendant signed plea agreements and was questioned in open court before pleading guilty. The court found that defendant’s pleas were free and voluntary, and that defendant knew and understood his constitutional rights, the nature of the charge, and the consequences of the plea. The court also found a factual basis for each plea. The court ordered defendant to return to court at a later date for sentencing.
On September 29, 2006, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea in case number SWF017575 (the motion). He argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he did not have his glasses at the time of the plea, so he was unable to read the police report or plea agreement. His attorney had to read the plea agreement to him. Defendant also claimed that, after he entered his plea, he was informed that a witness had come forward who would say that he did not assault anyone. Defendant further asserted that his attorney failed to properly investigate the case, that she did not read the police report to him, and that she did not let him explain his side of the case to her.
The People filed an opposition to the motion and pointed out that defendant did not provide any information about how he became aware of the existence of the alleged new witness; he also failed to provide a declaration from the witness describing what he (the witness) would be willing to testify to or about. The People noted that the court found defendant’s plea free and voluntary, and that defendant understood his rights. The People further stated that, if called as a witness, defendant’s counsel would testify that she fully reviewed the police report with defendant and discussed his case and prospects with him.
On October 13, 2006, the court denied defendant’s motion. It then proceeded to sentence defendant to three years in state prison in case number SWF017575, to two years in case number SWF017429, to run concurrent with the term in SWF017575, and to 28 months in SWF014692, to run concurrent with the terms in the other two cases.
DISCUSSION
Dependant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
We concur: GAUT, J., MILLER, J.