Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. No. MCR030497A Edward P. Moffat II, Judge.
Rex A. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Kane, J.
OPINION
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On December 17, 2007, a criminal complaint was filed charging appellant, Jose Roberto Martinez, with two counts of felony possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378, counts one & three), possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351, count two), and possession of narcotic paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a), count four).
On January 11, 2008, appellant entered into a plea agreement. Appellant was advised of the consequences of his plea and his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/ Tahl. Appellant pled no contest to count one on the condition that he receive a lid of 16 months in prison. On February 11, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to prison for a term of 16 months. The court imposed a restitution fine and granted appellant applicable custody credits. Martinez did not obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court.
Appellant executed a declaration regarding guilty plea in which he acknowledged he was waiving his constitutional rights, admitting count one, and that he would receive a sentencing lid of 16 months. Appellant further acknowledged that the police report served as a factual basis for his plea. According to the probation officer’s report, narcotics officers in Madera County executed a search warrant. The officers found methamphetamine in appellant’s bedroom. Appellant was given and waived his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. Appellant admitted selling methamphetamine.
Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.
Martinez’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Martinez was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on June 23, 2008, we invited Martinez to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.