Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FBA008468, John P. Vander Feer, Judge.
Susan K. Keiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.
Defendant was sentenced to a stipulated term of 28 years in prison pursuant to a plea agreement by which he pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon upon a peace officer (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (d)(1)), and admitted he had discharged a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (c).)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2005, San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department Sergeant Moore was driving a marked patrol car when he observed a gray or silver colored Pontiac Grand Prix exceeding the speed limit and drifting within the lane. He initiated a traffic stop, activated his spot light, and approached the vehicle on foot. When Deputy Moore was within about 20 feet of the vehicle, defendant, who was the driver of the Pontiac, covered his side mirror with his hand, said something to the deputy, and then sped away. Deputy Moore pursued defendant on a lengthy chase, during which defendant committed various additional traffic violations, including driving southbound in the northbound lane.
Eventually, the deputy saw the dome light of defendant’s car turn on, and noticed defendant fumbling in his car. Defendant slowed down, lurched forward and went sideways; the defendant then came out of the driver’s door with a long gun, pointed it at the deputy, and fired the gun. Defendant got back into his car and fled again, slowing and stopping once more after being pursued further by Deputy Moore. Once again, defendant slowed down, opened the driver’s side door, and fired his gun at the deputy. The defendant then fled on foot through a field.
Deputy Moore discovered two bullet holes in his patrol car, which left holes through the radiator of the vehicle and a rear flat tire. The damage to the vehicle cost nearly $1400.00 to repair. Deputy Moore also recovered a 30-30 rifle bullet casing.
Defendant was pursued by another deputy and eventually was charged by an amended information with two counts of assault on or against a peace officer with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (d)(1), counts 1, 2), one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 3), and one count of evading a peace officer with willful disregard for safety. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 4.) It was further alleged that in the commission of counts 1 and 2, defendant personally discharged a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subds. (a)-(d).) Finally, it was alleged defendant had suffered a strike prior (§ 667, subd. (b)-(i)), a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and a prison prior. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
On February 15, 2008, defendant pled guilty to count 1 (§ 245, subd. (d)(1)), pursuant to a plea bargain, admitted the gun discharge enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and admitted a strike (§ 667, subd. (e)(1)), in return for a stipulated term of 28 years in prison and dismissal of all remaining counts and special allegations. Defendant waived referral to probation for a sentencing report and was immediately sentenced in conformity with the plea agreement. Defendant then appealed from the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
DISCUSSION
At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. There is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Further, although the trial court mistakenly referred to the preliminary hearing transcript as the “plea dated October 20, 2005,” the fact the parties stipulated that the document of that date (which was the date of the preliminary hearing) established a factual basis for the plea satisfies the legal requirements. (See People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 443-444.)
Finally, the length of defendant’s sentence was an integral part of the plea agreement, precluding any challenge to the sentence in the absence of a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 73.)
We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GAUT, J., MILLER, J.