Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 06CF3982, Gary S. Paer, Judge.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, J.
Defendant Rogelio Castillo Hernandez pleaded guilty to committing a forcible lewd act on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1); all further statutory references are to this code) and forcible sexual penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)). He also admitted digital penetration of a child (§ 1203.66, subd. (a)(8)). Three other counts and related allegations, including one alleging a lewd act on multiple children, were dismissed.
Pursuant to the plea agreement he was sentenced to the middle term of six years for each count, to run concurrently. He was given credits of 325 days for actual time and 48 days of good time/work time for a total of 373 days.
The court also imposed the following fines and fees: Restitution of $200 (§ 1202.4); parole revocation of $200 (§ 1202.45), to be stayed pending completion of parole; sex offender fee of $300 (§ 290.3); and security fee of $20 per count (§ 1465.8). He was also ordered to pay restitution of $1,440 to the victim (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)) plus a 10 percent administrative fee (§ 1203.1, subd. (l)).
Defendant was ordered to provide a DNA sample (§ 296) and to lifetime registration as a sex offender (§ 290). The court also signed a protective order under section 3053.6, prohibiting defendant from contacting the victims.
When defendant appealed we appointed a lawyer to represent him. Counsel filed a brief setting forth the limited facts regarding the offenses, the plea, and the disposition. He did not argue against defendant but advised the court he had not found any issues to present on his behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) He suggested three issues to assist us in our independent review of the record: (1) Prior to pleading guilty, was defendant sufficiently advised about his rights; (2) was the sentence consistent with the guilty plea; and (3) did defendant receive correct custody credits?
Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him. We examined the entire record to determine if any arguable issues were present, including those suggested by counsel, and found none. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.)
Defendant may not appeal his guilty plea. His notice of appeal stated the appeal was from sentencing or matters subsequent to the plea. To challenge the plea, including whether he was advised of his rights, he had to obtain a certificate of probable cause, which he did not do. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304, subd. (a)(1); People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76 [certificate required to appeal validity of guilty plea].) Moreover, on the merits, the plea form shows defendant initialed all the lines showing he had been advised of his various rights, and his lawyer stated on the form she had explained all of the rights. At the hearing, the court advised him of his rights and defendant stated on the record that he understood and waived them.
Secondly, the record shows the sentence is exactly what defendant and the prosecutor agreed to.
Finally, defendant’s counsel supplied the number of days for defendant’s actual and good time/work time credits. The abstract of judgment shows those same numbers. The court noted section 2933.1 limited credits to 15 percent of the work time.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., ARONSON, J.