Opinion
G057974
02-28-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEN SABAH ODISHO, Defendant and Appellant.
Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 18WF2224) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed. Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
A complaint charged defendant Alen Sabeh Odisho with two counts of receiving stolen property with a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 496d, subd. (a), 666.5, subd. (a), all further statutory references are to this code); and alleged six prison prior conviction sentence enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
In a plea to the court, Odisho pleaded guilty to both counts, and admitted the prior convictions allegations. As agreed in the guilty plea form, the court struck the prison prior enhancements and sentenced Odisho to a total term of four years, to be served in any state or local penal institution, concurrent with a four-year sentence imposed in case number 19NF0098.
Odisho filed two notices of appeal. One of the notices acknowledged his appeal challenges the validity of the guilty pleas and admissions, and contained a request for a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied.
We appointed counsel to represent Odisho on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court she found no arguable issues to assert on Odisho's behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Counsel and this court notified Odisho he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he did not and the time to do so has passed.
To assist us in our independent review of the record (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders)), counsel suggested we consider whether Odisho was properly advised of his rights in conjunction with his guilty plea.
DISCUSSION
We have independently reviewed the entire record according to our obligations under Wende and Anders, but found no arguable issues on appeal. Counsel suggested we consider whether Odisho was properly advised of his constitutional rights in conjunction with his guilty plea. This we cannot do, because Odisho did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 78; People v. Puente (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1149; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
Even if we could consider the issue, we would conclude Odisho was properly advised of his constitutional rights in conjunction with his guilty plea, based upon the written advisement of rights contained in the guilty plea form, and the oral advisement of rights by the court on the record during the change of plea hearing. (In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122; People v. Cooper (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 593.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
THOMPSON, J. WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. IKOLA, J.