Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super.Ct.No. VCR180774.
Jones, P.J.
Edrick Steven Reisinger appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one count of possessing methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and one count of unlawfully possessing an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 12280, subd. (b)). 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 October 13, 2005, law enforcement personnel searched appellant’s home in Fairfield. They found three firearms, 442.7 grams of methamphetamine, a scale, packaging material, and almost $4,000 in cash.
Based on these facts, a complaint was filed charging appellant with one drug and one weapon offense.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress that challenged the validity of the search of his home. The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant’s motion and denied it.
Appellant waived a preliminary hearing, and an amended information was filed charging appellant with the offenses we have set forth above.
The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant pleaded no contest to both offenses. In exchange, the court agreed to consider appellant for probation, and if probation was denied, to sentence appellant to no more than five years in prison. As part of the agreement, appellant expressly waived his right to appeal.
Subsequently, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation on the condition that he serve one year in the county jail.
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 took steps to ensure that appellant understood the consequences of his plea. The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea bargain. Since appellant waived his right to appeal, the merits of the suppression motion are not properly before us. (People v. Kelly (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 533, 536.) The record indicates appellant waived his right to appeal, freely, knowingly, and intelligently. (People v. Charles (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 552, 563-564.)
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.