Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jerold L. Turner, Judge., Super. Ct. No. TF005244A
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J. and Kane, J.
On February 24, 2009, appellant Andrew Bradley Hodges, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to a single count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)). Terms of the plea agreement included the following: appellant would be sentenced to three years in prison; the remaining charges--vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), vehicle theft with a prior conviction of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a))--would be dismissed; he would be required to pay restitution; and the restitution could be based on dismissed counts as well as the instant offense. (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.)
Following the entry of his plea, appellant waived the preparation of a presentence report, and the court imposed the agreed-upon prison term of three years, dismissed the remaining charges and ordered appellant to make restitution to the victims in an amount determined by the Kern County Probation Department.
On April 2, 2009, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
The charge to which appellant pled no contest was as follows: On or about January 27, 2009, appellant vandalized a car belonging to another person, causing damage of $400 or more.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.