Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS070211.
Premo, J.
Defendant Jose Alfredo Lara pleaded guilty to one count of possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and one count of possessing paraphernalia for an unlawful use (id., § 11364). He was placed on probation. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On or about July 23, 2007, the vehicle defendant had been driving was found to contain a small amount of methamphetamine and a glass smoking pipe. Defendant was charged with transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) as well as with the two possession counts to which he later pleaded guilty. Defendant initially pleaded not guilty but moved to withdraw the plea on the condition he be granted deferred entry of judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed the transportation count in the interests of justice. (Pen. Code, § 1385.) Defendant was granted deferred entry of judgment and ordered to enroll with Valley Health Associates for drug treatment.
Defendant received an unsatisfactory discharge from the Valley Health Associates program, was ordered to re-enroll in the program, then failed to appear at the subsequent hearing to show proof of enrollment. A warrant for his arrest was issued and he was taken into custody.
At sentencing, the trial court placed defendant on probation for three years on the condition he serve 180 days in jail. It was noted that defendant had an “INS hold.” The court imposed pertinent fees and fines and ordered defendant to report to his probation officer immediately upon his release from custody. The reporting requirement would be suspended if defendant were deported.
II. Discussion
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5, subd. (a).) Absent a certificate of probable cause this appeal is inoperative insofar as it might challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (Ibid.) The appeal may be based upon matters that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) With that limitation in mind, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having done so, we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.