Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC055569
Marchiano, P.J.
Defendant Manny Kama Liu appeals his conviction based on pleas of nolo contendere to several charges. The opening brief filed by his appellate counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to the decision in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. After reviewing the record, we find no meritorious issues to be briefed or argued.
Background
On October 11, 2002, defendant drove with three associates from San Francisco to San Mateo County. Their intent was to commit robbery, and defendant’s role was to be the group’s “getaway driver.” After scouting for a likely target, they selected a Wells Fargo Bank in Burlingame. Defendant dropped the others off at the bank’s rear entrance and waited nearby. The three robbers were armed, and used their weapons in the course of the robbery. Resulting gunshot wounds killed the bank manager and seriously injured another employee. The three robbers returned to defendant’s vehicle and the four fled the scene.
A few weeks later, on November 1, 2002, defendant drove four associates to Mountain View in Santa Clara County, again to commit robbery. Defendant again waited in the vehicle while the other four robbed a fast food restaurant and a nearby convenience store. A police officer in the immediate vicinity saw their vehicle speed away as he received notice of a robbery in progress at the restaurant. A passenger fired at the officer after he pulled the vehicle over, wounding the officer in the face. The vehicle again sped away, and its passengers fired on other officers who had taken up the pursuit. Defendant’s vehicle crashed into another vehicle at an intersection in East Palo Alto, and the occupants fled on foot. Police found and arrested defendant later the same day.
The factual summary is drawn from the transcript of defendant’s preliminary examination, conducted in January 2004.
An amended information, filed May 31, 2005, alleged a number of counts against defendant. These included a charge of accessory to murder (Pen. Code, §§ 32, 187, subd. (a)), charges of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), and charges of second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)). The information also included several sentence enhancement allegations against defendant, arising from his associates’ use of handguns during the robberies. (§§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (d).) In a change of plea, defendant pleaded nolo contendere to these charges and admitted these enhancement allegations. The trial court accepted the change of plea and accordingly found defendant guilty. On July 13, 2005, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 36 years four months and imposed restitution fines pursuant to sections 1202.4 and 1202.45. Defendant filed a notice of appeal the following month.
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Discussion
Initially, we note the appeal is improper. A defendant cannot appeal a conviction based on a plea of nolo contendere unless he first requests, and the trial court issues, a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5) Here, there was no such request or issuance.
There are two exceptions not applicable here. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
In any event, we have considered the “affidavit” that defendant prepared and submitted himself, permitting it to be filed as a supplemental brief. The arguments presented in this supplemental brief resemble a number of statements defendant made below—they conflate California criminal law with legal terms and concepts applicable only in civil proceedings involving contractual or commercial issues, or proceedings based on federal civil rights legislation. Nevertheless, we distill from his arguments two essential objections: that he is not guilty of the offenses for which he was convicted, and that his trial counsel, the prosecution, and the trial court acted improperly in order to coerce his change of plea.
Having reviewed the entire record, we cannot agree. It discloses no prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant was represented by competent trial counsel at all stages of the proceeding—and particularly at the stage of defendant’s change of plea. Both his counsel and the trial court were careful to ensure that defendant’s unique arguments were philosophical views that did not implicate his competency to stand trial or his ability to understand the nature of his change of plea. The trial court carefully advised defendant of the rights and consequences of that plea, and ensured that his change of plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. We have found no sentencing errors. The court imposed a prison term in accordance with a negotiated plea, imposed proper restitution fines, and awarded appropriate presentence credits. As there was no error relating to defendant’s plea, he is not entitled to challenge the trial court’s determination of his guilt. (See People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.)
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Stein, J., Swager, J.