Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. SWF019704 Michael S. Hider, Judge. (Retired judge of the Merced S.Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI, J.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Humberto Gastelum, represented by counsel, pled guilty to negligent discharge of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 246.3) and admitted one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to a total term of five years in state prison with credit of eight days for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment, essentially challenging the validity of the plea agreement and the representation he received.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
I
The details of defendant’s criminal conduct are not contained in the record on appeal. Defendant waived a preliminary hearing and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea as contained in the police officer’s report. In any event, the facts are not pertinent to the issues we must resolve in this appeal.
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 defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. In his two-page supplemental letter brief, defendant claims he should have received a lighter sentence and that he regrets his actions. He claims that, when he fired the gun in the air while he was inebriated, he did not intend to hurt anyone. He also argues that his prior strike should have been stricken and requests that his current charge be reduced.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
“Other than search and seizure issues specifically reviewable under section 1538.5, subdivision (m), all errors arising prior to entry of plea of guilty or nolo contendere are waived by the plea, except those based on ‘reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings....’” (People v. Shults (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 714, 718-719, and cases cited therein; see also § 1237.5, subd. (a).) Issues relating to a defendant’s guilt or to the procedure in establishing guilt are not cognizable on appeal following a change of plea. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896; People v. Wakefield (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 67, 69-71.) The reason for the rule is that a guilty (or nolo contendere) plea “admits all matters essential to the conviction.” (DeVaughn, at p. 895; see also People v. LaJocies (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 947, 956, and cases cited therein; § 1016.) “Obtaining a certificate of probable cause does not make cognizable those issues which have been waived by a plea of guilty.” (People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 9.)
Defendant here pled guilty to negligent discharge of a firearm (§ 246.3) and admitted that he had sustained one prior strike conviction and had served one prior prison term for a stipulated term of five years in state prison and the dismissal of the remaining allegations. He therefore waived any claims to matters occurring prior to the entry of plea of guilty.
Moreover, the record shows defendant was adequately advised of the rights being waived and the consequences of pleading guilty. Further, the plea agreement reflects that defendant had sufficient time to consult with his attorney concerning the case. Additionally, in open court, defendant admitted that he understood all of his rights, he was aware of the consequences of pleading guilty, he had had sufficient time to consult his attorney, his attorney had explained everything on the plea form to him, and he had had sufficient time to consider the meaning of each statement in the plea form. In fact, defendant had no questions or hesitations during the taking of the plea.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
II
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P.J., McKINSTER, J.