Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge, Super.Ct.No. FVI025562
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.
Defendant pled nolo contendere to inflicting corporal injury on his spouse. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) He also admitted having suffered a strike prior. (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i).) He was sentenced to the agreed-to term of 8 years in prison. There is no certificate of probable cause in the record before this court.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Before his plea, defense counsel had expressed a doubt about defendant’s mental competency to stand trial, proceedings had been suspended, defendant had been examined by a doctor, the doctor had reported back to the trial court and it had declared defendant to be competent and proceedings had been reinstated.
Defendant 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, a summary of the facts, 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 was read and considered.
Facts
At the taking of defendant’s plea, the trial court announced that counsel had stipulated that “if the court w[as] to read the police report . . ., it would provide a factual basis for [defendant’s] plea . . . .” Counsel for defendant agreed to this statement, adding, “As long as the police reports do not become part of the face of the record . . . .” The court found there was a factual basis for the plea. The report(s) are not part of the record before this court.
1. Defendant’s Contentions
In his four-page typed personal supplemental brief, defendant contends that absent his admission or a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that aggravating facts supporting the imposition of the upper term exist, he should not have been sentenced to the upper term under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403]. However, defendant expressly and in writing agreed to the imposition of the upper term, doubled under the two strikes provisions of section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), as part of his plea bargain. Therefore, he may not now contend that the upper term should not have been imposed. (People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 776; People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295.) Moreover, his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause prohibits his challenge to his negotiated sentence. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 78.)
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, J., MILLER, J.