Opinion
B165150.
10-24-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOE LEE MCKENNEY, Defendant and Appellant.
Jonathan B. Steiner and Ronnie Duberstein, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Joe Lee McKenney pled no contest to three robbery counts (Pen. Code, § 211), as to one count, admitted personal use of a firearm pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b), and as to another count, infliction of great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a). Sentenced to a term of 14 years in prison, he appeals claiming his plea was "illegal." He requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause. He, therefore, is entitled to raise on appeal and obtain review of only "noncertificate" issues. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094-1097.)
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On May 28, 2003, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. His request for an extension of time to file a supplemental brief was granted. On August 20, 2003, he filed such a brief in which he argued that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective and the evidence was insufficient to support a finding he was in possession of a gun.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: VOGEL (C.S.), P.J., and HASTINGS, J. --------------- Notes: "The defendant may take an appeal without a statement of certificate grounds or a certificate of probable cause if he does so solely on noncertificate grounds, which go to postplea matters not challenging his pleas validity and/or matters involving a search or seizure whose lawfulness was contested pursuant to section 1538.5. [Citations.] [¶] [California Rules of Court,] Rule 31(d), second paragraph, implements the exception to section 1237.5 by providing, in pertinent part, that the defendant may take and prosecute an appeal, without a statement of certificate grounds or a certificate of probable cause, if he has based his appeal solely on noncertificate grounds and has filed a notice of appeal so stating within 60 days after rendition of judgment. [Citations.] If he does so, his appeal is operative in this regard. [Citation.]" (People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1096.)