Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Super. Ct. No. SWF024676 John M. Monterosso, Judge.
Jamie L. Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.
Defendant and appellant Mario Vincent Lopez appeals following his guilty plea to forgery. (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d).) We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 21, 2008, defendant was charged in count 1 with forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)), and in count 2 with burglary (§ 459). It was further alleged defendant previously served two prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled guilty on March 12, 2008, to count 1, forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)), and admitted the factual basis for the charge. He also admitted the truth of the prior prison term allegations.
As part of the plea bargain, the People agreed not to amend the charging document to add “six prison priors that had not yet been alleged.” During the change of plea hearing, the court asked defendant whether he felt pressured or threatened to plead guilty. Through counsel, defendant stated that he “would like to thank the District Attorney for not filing all the other prison priors. . . . [H]e feels a little pressured, but he does understand that he’s getting a good deal because of it, and he just wanted to express that, that he feels some pressure, but, on the other hand, he’s thankful that they didn’t file that, and he is ready to proceed, and he did not feel threatened.” The court then asked defendant directly, “the pressure that you’re feeling . . . am I correct in understanding that it is the same pressure anybody would feel when they are signing up to go to state prison? Is that a fair statement?” Defendant responded affirmatively and added, “It’s all good. Thank you.” The court then stated: “I just wanted to make sure. The maximum exposure, from my understanding based on the priors that were not alleged, is 12 years in prison. You’re getting four. That sounds like a pretty good deal. Do you want to go forward with that deal?” Defendant responded, “Yes, sir.”
Immediately after defendant pled guilty, the court followed the plea agreement by sentencing him to the middle term of two years plus one year each for the two prison priors, for a total of four years in state prison. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court also dismissed all remaining counts and allegations.
DISCUSSION
On May 12, 2008, defendant filed a form notice of appeal indicating he wished to appeal from the judgment entered March 12, 2008, “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he failed to do. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:RICHLI, J., MILLER, J.