Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MA041287, Charles A. Chung, Judge.
Kathleen M. Redmond, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BIGELOW, J.
On January 31, 2008, Khashan Ynette Garrett and her son presented a paycheck (whose printing indicated it had been issued by EDAC Power Incorporated) as a down payment on the purchase of a car from an auto business in Lancaster. A manager at the auto business reviewed the transaction and determined the check was “no good,” and an EDAC account supervisor subsequently told an investigating deputy that the check was counterfeit.
On March 26, 2008, the People filed an information charging Garrett with one count of commercial burglary and one count of forgery.
Garrett’s son was charged with the same counts. He is not a party to this appeal.
On April 14, 2008, Garrett waived her constitutional trial rights, and pleaded nolo contendre to the forgery count, in exchange for which the People agreed to dismiss the burglary count. At the same time, Garrett admitted that she had violated her probation in a prior burglary case.
In accord with the negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Garrett to serve 2 years (the mid-term) in state prison, and imposed the common restitution fines and fees. The court terminated the probation violation matter.
Garrett filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. On December 22, 2008, Garrett’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues. On December 23, 2008, we notified Garrett by letter that she could submit within 30 days any ground of appeal, argument or contention which she wished us to consider. Following an intervening delay in which we issued an opinion, and then granted Garrett’s request to recall the remittitur, Garrett filed supplemental arguments on July 6, 2009.
We have independently reviewed the record, and are satisfied that Garrett’s appointed counsel has fulfilled her duty, and that no arguable issues exist regarding the validity of Garrett’s plea and sentence. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
Garrett’s supplemental brief contains an assertion that she “took a deal signed under duress,” and explains that she was “under a lot of stress being away from [her] children already for so long,” and that the “pressure[] and stress was so great... [she] decided to take the deal....” We reject Garrett’s plea-based argument because, while duress is a recognized ground for a motion to withdraw a guilty plea (see, e.g., People v. Weaver (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 131), Garrett’s argument on appeal relies on matters that are outside the record submitted to our court for her current appeal. The record before us on her appeal shows that the trial court asked Garrett whether she was “pleading freely and voluntarily because [she felt it was] in her best interest to do so,” and shows that Garrett answered the trial court in the affirmative. If a different factual scenario exists, Garrett must establish those facts other than in her current appeal.
In another vein, Garrett appears to suggest that her plea is invalid because, in fact, she “had no knowledge of the check being counterfeit.” We reject this argument on appeal because the matters submitted by Garrett do not overcome the showing in the record that, at the time of Garrett’s plea, the trial court accepted a stipulation that there was a factual basis for the plea.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: FLIER, Acting P. J., BENDIX, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.