Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR248037
NEEDHAM, J.
Appellant Donald W. Kunkel appeals from a judgment placing him on probation after he pled no contest to a charge of misdemeanor resisting arrest in exchange for a dismissal of felony charges. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a).) Court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues, but has asked this court to independently review the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.
Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Appellant telephoned the Social Security Office in Napa on September 24, 2007 to complain about a denial of disability benefits. During the conversation with the staff person in the office, he referred to “the guy who tried to drive the car with the explosives into the [state] capitol,” commenting that he would have to do the same to get his benefits. The next day, appellant was taken into custody for a mental health evaluation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 (section 5150).
While in custody on the section 5150 hold, appellant told authorities that he had guns, although he did not give consistent stories as to where they were located. California Highway Patrol Officer McClellin went to appellant’s last known address, where the building manager advised him that he had found a box of ammunition while cleaning appellant’s apartment. McClellin also determined that two pistols were registered to appellant.
On October 2, Officer McClellin returned to the mental health facility to arrest appellant for illegally possessing firearms and ammunition. Upon seeing McClellin, appellant turned and attempted to flee back inside the facility. He was blocked by staff, arrested, and was transported to county jail, where he admitted owning several guns that were stored at his mother’s house. A search of his mother’s house revealed a .380 caliber pistol, several rifles and a shotgun.
California Highway Patrol Officer Millspaugh, who had taken appellant into custody on the Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 hold, knew appellant was someone who believed in a conspiracy against him arising from the termination of his employment with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). When appellant lost his Caltrans job in 2001, he was taken into custody on a section 5150 hold after he became distraught and put a gun to his head. He returned to work but lost his job again in 2003. In 2005, he began calling State Senator Michael Machado’s office about perceived injustices committed against him by Caltrans and other agencies, once mentioning that he had a handgun and was willing to use it. Appellant contacted the office of the Employment Development Department in 2006 and the State Personnel Board in 2007, referring again to the incident in which a truck driver had crashed into the side of the State Capitol building. In April 2007, appellant had angrily approached an employee at a Caltrans yard.
An information was filed charging appellant with felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a person detained on a hold under section 5150 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 8103, subd. (f)), felony unlawful possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from owning a fiream (§ 12316, subd. (b)), and two counts of misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)). Appellant pled no contest to one count of misdemeanor resisting arrest and was placed on probation subject to certain conditions, including 105 days of jail time (which he had already served at the time of sentencing) and various stay-away orders. The remaining counts were dismissed.
II. Discussion
As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we affirmatively note that appointed counsel has filed a Wende brief raising no issues, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, and that appellant did not file such a brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and, as discussed below, find none.
Appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and filed a notice of appeal indicating he was challenging only the sentence imposed or other matters occurring after the plea. (§ 1237.5.) Therefore, he may not complain about matters affecting the validity of his plea. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74 (Panizzon).) In any event, appellant signed a written plea form advising him of his constitutional right to a jury trial, his right to call witnesses and present a defense during that proceeding, his right to confront the witnesses against him, and his right to refuse to take the stand and incriminate himself. He indicated that he understood and waived those rights when he signed the form, and he confirmed in open court at the change of plea hearing that he understood the information in the form. There is nothing in the record to suggest his plea was anything other than knowing and voluntary. (See People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 424, 437; Panizzon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 83; People v. Green (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 463, 466.) Pursuant to section 1203.1, subdivision (j), the trial court had broad discretion to impose reasonable probation conditions and did not abuse that discretion. (People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 65.)
We find no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur. JONES, P. J., SIMONS, J.