Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. SA058579, Amy D. Hogue, Judge.
Carlos Enrique Gutierrez, in pro. per., and Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, Acting P. J.
Carlos Gutierrez appeals from the judgment entered following revocation and reinstatement of probation ordered after a contested hearing at which the trial court found that defendant had failed to obey all laws and ordered that he serve 180 days in county jail. (Probation was originally granted upon defendant’s negotiated plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine on September 27, 2005.) In propria persona, defendant filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause. The request, which was denied, set forth several principles of law but did not relate these principles in any meaningful way to this case.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.) We then sent identical letters to defendant and to appointed counsel in which we directed counsel immediately to forward the appellate record to defendant and informed defendant that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider.
In response, defendant has submitted a multi-page declaration and points and authorities captioned “notice of presumption of police misconduct and vindictive prosecution.” It is a well-established rule that “[a]ppellate jurisdiction is limited to the four corners of the record on appeal [citations] . . . .” (In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634, 646.) But there is nothing in the record of this appeal to support defendant’s claims of police misconduct and vindictive prosecution. Accordingly, these assertions must be rejected.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: VOGEL, J., JACKSON, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.