Opinion
C059782
5-15-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM McKINNEY, Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published
On February 13, 2008, Sacramento police officers were dispatched to investigate the theft of K.T.s flatbed trailer from his brothers yard. A CD from the yards video surveillance system showed defendants truck driving the trailer off the yard. A detective found defendant in his parked truck, with the stolen trailer parked directly across the street behind a strip mall.
Defendant was arrested and executed a Miranda waiver. While being transported to the police station, defendant offered to make a deal, saying "two Mexican guys were going to pay him a hundred dollars" to transport the trailer to a Stockton muffler shop.
Defendant entered a no-contest plea to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior prison term. As part of the plea agreement, if the court subsequently found that an alleged prior conviction was a strike, the People would dismiss the prison term allegation and defendant would receive a stipulated four-year term, but if the court found the prior conviction was not a strike, then defendants stipulated term would be three years—a two-year middle term and one year for the prior prison term. The People later dismissed the strike allegation.
Defendant made a Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) at the sentencing hearing, alleging various deficiencies of counsel rendered him incapable of making an informed plea decision, and that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The court denied the motion after a hearing. After the court resumed the sentencing hearing, defendant sought to withdraw his plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of his right to speedy trial, which the court denied. The court imposed the stipulated three-year prison term, ordered various fines and fees, and awarded defendant 206 days credit (138 actual and 68 conduct).
Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising claims of error which we reject for the reasons stated below.
Defendant contends his right to a speedy trial was violated and he should be allowed to vacate his plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Penal Code section 1237.5 provides that "a defendant may not appeal `from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere unless the defendant has applied to the trial court for, and the trial court has executed and filed, `a certificate of probable cause for such appeal. [Citation.]" (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; Pen. Code, § 1237.5, subd. (b).) "Exempt from this certificate requirement are postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea." (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.)
Here, defendant directly challenges the validity of the plea. Absent a certificate of probable cause, which he failed to secure, his claim is barred. His other claim, an alleged violation of his right to speedy trial, is also forfeited on appeal by his no-contest plea. (People v. Hernandez (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.
ROBIE, J.