Opinion
A101359.
11-21-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT LA FOLLETT LOCKWOOD, Defendant and Appellant.
Robert Lockwood appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of guilty. Appellants court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
An information filed in Sonoma County Superior Court charged appellant with child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)), corporal injury of a spouse or cohabitant after suffering a conviction for a similar offense (§ 273.5, subd. (e)), making terrorist threats (§ 422), and dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). The information further alleged that appellant suffered a prior strike (§ 1170.12).
In a negotiated disposition, the prosecution amended the information to strike from the count of corporal injury of a spouse or cohabitant the allegation that appellant suffered a prior similar conviction, thus bringing the count within the parameters of section 273.5, subdivision (a). Appellant then pleaded guilty to this amended count (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) with the understanding that the court would sentence him to four years in state prison.
As agreed, the court sentenced appellant to the aggravated term of four years in state prison for the corporal injury of a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The court granted appellant 441 days total presentence credit and ordered him to pay an $800 restitution fine.
The trial court granted appellant a certificate of probable cause to raise the issues that his trial counsel misinformed him about the nature of the plea bargain and generally provided inadequate representation. Because these allegations are based on defense counsels personal behavior and communications not contained within the record, they are not cognizable on appeal despite the courts decision to grant the certificate of probable cause. Nothing in the record supports appellants claim that he did not understand he would be sentenced to four years in state prison.
Before appellant entered his plea, the court advised him of the constitutional rights he would be waiving and the direct consequences of his plea. Appellant expressly waived his constitutional rights and knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty.
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
There was no sentencing error.
There are no issues that require further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur, Stevens, Acting P. J., Gemello, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Penal Code.