People v. Mitchell

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY ALAN MITCHELL, Defendant…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 15, 2012

D060161 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2012)

Opinion

D060161

03-15-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY ALAN MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant.

MCINTYRE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. SCN286565)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed.

A complaint charged Gregory Alan Mitchell with nine counts of lewd acts upon N.C. and two counts of lewd acts upon H.C. Mitchell pleaded guilty to two counts pertaining to each child. He also admitted the special allegations attached to each count; namely, that he had substantial sexual conduct with a child under 14 years of age and that the counts were committed against more than one victim. The remaining charges were dismissed and Mitchell agreed to a stipulated sentence of 14 years in prison. The trial court imposed several fines and fees and gave Mitchell a total of 179 days of credit for time served.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), he listed as possible, but not arguable issues, whether his: (1) guilty plea in exchange for a 14 year stipulated sentence was constitutionally valid; and (2) waiver of appellate rights was valid. We granted Mitchell permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Mitchell on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_______________

MCINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

_______________

NARES, Acting P. J.

_______________

AARON, J.