Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR130074
Swager, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment following his plea of no contest and imposition of sentence. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Since the present appeal is taken from a guilty plea, we need only concisely recite the facts pertinent to the underlying conviction as necessary to our limited review on appeal.
On July 5, 2006, a criminal complaint was filed charging defendant with one count of second degree commercial burglary, a felony. (Pen. Code, § 459.)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On July 13, 2006, defendant pled no contest to the burglary charge pursuant to a plea bargain. As a part of his plea bargain, defendant agreed that if he failed to make and keep an appointment for a probation interview or failed to appear at sentencing, he would be sentenced to a term of 16 months in state prison. Defendant was released on his own recognizance and ordered to appear for sentencing August 10, 2006.
Defendant signed in at the probation department on July 14, 2006, but scheduled an appointment with the Proposition 36 program office instead of the probation office. Recognizing the possibility of confusion, the probation department asked the court for a 20-day continuance, contingent on defendant’s appearance at the sentencing hearing.
Defendant did not appear in court for sentencing on August 10, 2006, and a bench warrant was issued. He was re-arrested on August 24, 2006. The matter was continued for resentencing.
At the next sentencing date, September 25, 2006, defendant requested a continuance so that he could withdraw his guilty plea and provide the court with the reason why he had failed to appear on August 10, 2006. The trial court denied the request, denied probation, and sentenced him to 16 months in state prison. He received a total of 68 days of credit for time served. He was also ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4. A further restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45 was stayed pending successful completion of parole. He was also ordered to pay a $20 security fee, a booking fee, restitution to the victim, and was ordered to submit to DNA testing pursuant to section 296. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal. By entering a plea of guilty, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime, and therefore is not entitled to review of any issue that goes to the question of his guilt or innocence. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) Without a certificate of probable cause, a defendant cannot contest the validity of his pleas; the only issues cognizable on appeal are issues relating to the validity of a denial of a motion to suppress evidence or issues relating to matters arising after the pleas were entered. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).) In the present case, no motions to suppress were filed.
We have reviewed the record, and particularly the written plea form executed by defendant. A Spanish language interpreter translated all of the relevant documents for him and was present at the hearings. Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. He was thoroughly and accurately advised before entry of his plea. His motion to withdraw the plea was properly denied.
There are no sentencing errors. In imposing sentence, the trial court properly considered evidence in the record, including the information in the probation report, and the arguments of counsel. Defendant was sentenced to the exact sentence set forth in the plea agreement. The denial of probation was in accord with the recommendation of the probation report and supported by a statement of reasons that is in turn supported by the evidence. The court was justified in imposing the fines and court security fee. No error in the calculation of presentence custody credits is established.
After a full review of the record, we find no arguable issues and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.
We concur: Stein, Acting P. J., Margulies, J.