Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR133904
Jones, P.J.
Charles Spencer Reed appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to evading a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), unlawful driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
On February 17, 2007, a peace officer tried to stop appellant for several Vehicle Code violations. Appellant led the officer on a high speed chase through Vallejo and then tried to flee on foot. The officer was able to arrest appellant after a chase and a brief struggle.
Based on these facts, a complaint was filed charging appellant with, inter alia, the offenses set forth above. The complaint also alleged appellant had one prior strike within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 1170.12), and that appellant had served a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant agreed to plead no contest to the offenses we have set forth above. In exchange, another count would be dismissed and appellant would be sentenced to a 32-month term.
Subsequently, the court sentenced appellant to the agreed 32-month term.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Prior to accepting appellant’s plea, the court explained to appellant the Constitutional rights he would be waiving. The court also explained to appellant the consequences of his plea. The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea bargain. Appellant was represented by adequate counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . (See also, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, J., Gemello, J.