Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. KA072233, Harold Mulville, Judge.
Sharon Fleming, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
Joe Juarez appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to evading an officer with willful disregard for the safety of persons and property, count 1 (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), driving while having a .08 percent or higher blood alcohol level, count 3 (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), his admission within the meaning of Vehicle Code sections 23550 and 23550.5 that within the last 10 years he suffered three prior convictions of Vehicle Code section 23152 and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and 667, subds. (b)-(i)). He was sentenced to prison for a total of five years and four months. He requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
He also pled no contest to one count in case number KA076973 and received a consecutive term of one year and four months. Appellant did not appeal from that judgment.
Pursuant to the negotiated disposition, charges of driving under the influence, hit and run driving, and driving with a suspended license for a prior DUI conviction were dismissed. Additionally, allegations he served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and had an additional strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes law were dismissed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
According to the probation report, on May 14, 2005, officers were pursuing appellant for reckless driving until they were instructed to terminate the pursuit. A deputy last saw appellant’s vehicle traveling at an estimated speed of 90 miles per hour. A short time later, appellant was seen walking in the middle of the street and was identified as just having been involved in an auto accident. Officers arrested appellant and administered two pre-alcohol screening blood tests. The results were .21 percent and .20 percent respectively.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On July 10, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On September 11, 2007, he filed a letter requesting a modification of his sentence and claiming there had been no pursuit. Additionally, he claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He also asks that he be placed in a substance abuse program.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, the only issues appellant may raise are ones relating to the validity of a search and seizure which was contested pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 and proceedings held subsequent to the plea. (See People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.) Appellant’s claim that there was no pursuit does not survive his plea since his plea admitted all matters essential to his conviction. (See People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896.) Additionally, since appellant’s sentence was an integral part of his agreement, his challenge to it is a challenge to the validity of his plea and requires a certificate of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.5. (See People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 78.) Appellant additionally has failed to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (See People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1007-1008.) Our review of the record has not shown any basis for that claim. Appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, J., SUZUKAWA, J.