Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No. BF116792A. Jerold L. Turner, Judge.
William Davies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., Kane, J.
OPINION
On September 27, 2006, appellant, Nancy Delgado Huizar, sold approximately eight grams of methamphetamine to an undercover detective in Delano.
On October 11, 2006, Huizar sold 14 grams of methamphetamine to the undercover detective.
On November 1, 2006, Huizar met with the detective again and agreed to provide him with one and one half ounces of methamphetamine. A few hours later, Huizar and the detective met at a restaurant and she was taken into custody. A search of Huizar’s car uncovered three baggies of methamphetamine weighing a total of 13.63 grams.
Officers also searched Huizar’s house and found .3 grams of methamphetamine in one bedroom and approximately 5 grams of methamphetamine in another bedroom. Richard Heredia was arrested at the house after he admitted living there and selling methamphetamine with Huizar from the residence.
Following a preliminary hearing, on December 28, 2006, the district attorney filed an information charging Huizar with three counts of transporting or selling methamphetamine (counts 1, 4, & 5/Health & Saf. Code, § 11379), two counts of possession for sale of methamphetamine (counts 2 & 3/Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and one count of maintaining a place for the purpose of unlawfully selling methamphetamine (count 6/Health & Saf. Code, § 11366).
On February 9, 2007, Huizar pled no contest to two counts of transporting or selling methamphetamine in exchange for a lid of three years and the dismissal of the remaining counts.
On March 21, 2007, the court sentenced Huizar to the middle term of three years on count 1 and a concurrent three year term on count 4. Huizar did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Huizar’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) However, in a letter filed August 3, 2007, Huizar, in pertinent part, appears to contend that her conviction on count 4 should be reversed because no tests were performed on the drugs she was charged in that count with transporting. We disagree.
Penal Code section 1237.5 provides:
“No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a revocation of probation following an admission of violation, except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court.”
Penal Code “[s]ection 1237.5 is an exception to the general rule that appeals may not be brought by defendants who have pleaded guilty or nolo contendere. This section provides the general rule that defendants who have pleaded guilty must obtain a certificate of probable cause before they may bring an appeal.” (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 41.)
“Thus, in [an] appeal, defendant may raise only those issues cognizable on appeal when a defendant obtains a certificate of probable cause under [Penal Code] section 1237.5. ‘“Obtaining a certificate of probable cause [however] does not make cognizable those issues which have been waived by a plea of guilty.”’ [Citation.] Under [Penal Code] section 1237.5, ‘only “constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings,” survive a guilty plea.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Hunter, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 41-42.)
“‘By pleading guilty, a defendant admits the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime, and is therefore not entitled to a review on the merits. [Citations.] “[I]ssues which merely go to the guilt or innocence of a defendant are ‘removed from consideration’ by entry of the plea.” [Citation.] Thus, claims involving sufficiency of the evidence [citation], voluntariness of an extrajudicial statement [citation], a trial court’s refusal to disclose the identity of an informant [citation], fairness of a pretrial lineup [citation], and other such issues have been held not cognizable on appeal following a guilty plea.’” (Hunter, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42, italics added.)
The issue Huizar raises is not cognizable on appeal, with or without a certificate of probable cause, because it challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction in count four.
Further, following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.