Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Linda S. Marks, Judge. Super. Ct. No. 07WF0914
Michelle C. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
O’LEARY, J.
We appointed counsel to represent Daniel Rios on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client, but advised this court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, Rios’ appellate counsel refers this court to the following items in the record that might arguably support the appeal: the constitutionality of his plea and the advisement by the court as to the sentence it would impose. Rios was given 30 days to file a written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS
A felony complaint charged Rios with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The complaint alleged Rios suffered one prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(1)), and two prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Rios later entered a plea of guilty to possessing methamphetamine and admitted the prior strike and one prison prior.
Prior to accepting Rios’ guilty plea, the trial court engaged in a lengthy colloquy with Rios. The trial court inquired of Rios if it was his intention to plead guilty to the sole count alleged and to admit a prior strike violation and one prison prior. Rios agreed that was his intention. The court then reviewed with Rios his five-page guilty plea form. Rios acknowledged he had an opportunity to read all five pages of the form. In entering his guilty plea, Rios offered the following factual basis: “In Orange County, California, on [January 17, 2007], I willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully possessed a usable quantity of methamphetamine.” The court then asked Rios if he understood the contents of the form and if he had asked his lawyers all the questions he had about the form. Rios indicated he understood the form and had asked his lawyers any questions he may have had. Then the court asked if Rios had any questions he would like to ask the court. Finally, the court asked Rios if the initials and signature on the form were his and Rios answered they were.
The trial court accepted the plea and found Rios had knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights. The court found there was a factual basis for the plea, and the plea had been voluntarily entered. The court sentenced Rios to the agreed upon sentence of three years and eight months in state prison, and the remaining prison prior was dismissed on the prosecutor’s motion.
Rios filed a notice of appeal based on grounds arising after entry of the plea and challenging the validity of his plea. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court.
DISCUSSION
Initially, Rios indicates his appeal, in part, “is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” Rios does not cite to any particular aspect of the sentence or matter occurring after the plea. We also note appellate counsel does not refer us to any such issues that might arguably support the appeal. The record demonstrates the trial court advised Rios both in writing and orally on the record in open court as to the negotiated sentence and the other consequences of his plea. The sentence Rios received was legally authorized and consistent with his plea agreement. We discern nothing out of the ordinary occurring after the plea. We find no error.
Rios next seeks to challenge the validity of his plea. Rios was not successful in his attempt to obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court. “When a defendant has pleaded guilty . . . to a criminal charge, the defendant may not appeal the judgment of conviction on issues ‘going to the legality of the proceedings’ unless, within 60 days of rendition of the judgment, he or she files with the trial court a written statement executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds for appeal and, within 20 days after that filing, the trial court executes and files a certificate of probable cause for appeal. [Citations.]” (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 646, quoting Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) All issues going to the validity of a plea require compliance with Penal Code section 1237.5. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76.) “The propriety of a trial court’s refusal to issue a certificate of probable cause is reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandate. [Citation.]” (People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 84, fn. 6, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1097-1098, fns. 7 & 9.) Rios did not seek writ review of the trial court’s denial. Accordingly, we will not address his challenge as to the validity of his plea.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., FYBEL, J.