Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA076807, Jack P. Hunt, Judge.
Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MOSK, J.
INTRODUCTION
The District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information charging defendant and appellant Kenneth L. Johnson (defendant) with carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a) ) and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). As to the carjacking charge, the information alleged that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission and attempted commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(2)) and that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). As to the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle charge, the information alleged that defendant previously had been convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (§ 666.5). As to both charges, the information alleged that defendant suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and that he had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and denied the special allegations.
All statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
The information was later amended to add a robbery charge (§ 211) along with the prior conviction allegations under sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded nolo contendere to the robbery charge and admitted the prior conviction allegations under sections 667, subdivision (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and section 667, subdivision (a)(1); the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for nine years. The trial court imposed on defendant a $20 court security assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $10 crime prevention fine (§ 1202.5, subd. (a)), a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and a stayed $200 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45). The trial court awarded defendant a total of 93 days of pre-sentence custody credit consisting of 81 days of actual credit and 12 days of conduct credit.
Defendant filed two handwritten notices of appeal in which he stated his intention to challenge his plea agreement based on, among other things his psychiatric condition at the time he entered the agreement. Neither notice of appeal included a request for a certificate of probable cause. In his third, “amended” notice of appeal—a check-the-box form notice of appeal—defendant stated that his appeal from his nolo contendere plea was based on matters occurring after the plea and that it challenged the validity of the plea. On the reverse side of the form notice of appeal, defendant requested a certificate of probable cause. In his request for a certificate of probable cause, defendant set forth his alleged psychiatric conditions; stated an inability to remember most of the day he entered his plea except, in part, his attorney’s advice that he take the deal based on his inability to find someone identified as “Mellisa Palmer;” stated that he was coerced into taking the plea agreement; and declared his innocence. The second notice of appeal; the third notice of appeal; the request for certificate of probable cause; a handwritten note that requested a fair trial and to have defendant’s witnesses located, stated that defendant could not remember the day he entered his plea, and asserted that his mental health had not been considered; and an acknowledgement of mailing are all dated March 1, 2007, and stamped received—apparently by the trial court—on March 12, 2007. On March 13, 2007, the trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
At the bottom of the request for certificate of probable cause, defendant wrote “(see attached paper).” Although not the next page in order in the Clerk’s Transcript, it appears that the handwritten note is the attached paper to which the request for certificate of probable cause refers.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have reviewed the record and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
According to the probation report, at about 1:00 a.m. on October 18, 2006, defendant and a female approached George Kerner in a gas station in Pomona. Defendant asked Kerner for a ride. Kerner declined. When Kerner’s attention was diverted, defendant and the female jumped into Kerner’s car and fled. Kerner apparently remained in contact with the car in some manner and defendant struck him numerous times in the head and arm with a flashlight to remove him from the car. Kerner fell from the car. On October 20, 2006, defendant was found in possession of Kerner’s car.
Defendant’s parole agent was contacted. His parole agent reported, “‘The parolee was diagnosed as having a bipolar disorder six years ago. During that time, he was prescribed psychotropic medications, “Depakote and Zyprexa.”’”
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to independently review the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. On June 22, 2007, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not submit a brief or letter. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J., KRIEGLER, J.