Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD208688, Roger W. Krauel, Judge.
IRION, J.
Pedro C. Rodriguez pleaded guilty to three counts of committing forcible lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)) (counts 9, 11 and 17) and one count of committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)) (count 22). In return for the plea, the district attorney agreed to dismiss four other counts alleging forcible lewd acts against a child, six counts of lewd acts upon a child, two counts of forcible oral copulation, two counts of oral copulation upon a minor, and six counts of rape by foreign object. The parties agreed that as a result of the plea, Rodriguez would be sentenced to between nine and 26 years in state prison. At a later sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Rodriguez to 24 years in prison, consisting of the middle term of six years on each of the four offenses. Rodriguez did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (See § 1237.5 [requiring certificate of probable cause for appeal of a guilty plea].)
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS
On two separate occasions on February 1, 2002, Rodriguez molested his granddaughter when she was under the age of 14, using force to fondle her breasts. On March 1, 2002, Rodriguez again molested her using force to fondle her breasts while she was under the age of 14. On May 5, 2005, Rodriguez molested another granddaughter through digital penetration, while she was under the age of 14.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Rodriguez was advised of his constitutional rights, the consequences of pleading guilty, and whether he voluntarily waived those rights; (2) whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to set forth reasons for imposing the middle term for counts 9, 11 and 17 in compliance with the California Rules of Court. Counsel also notes related questions with respect to whether the referenced contentions would be cognizable in this appeal due to Rodriguez's failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause (see § 1237.5) and his counsel's failure to object in the proceedings below (see People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353).
The trial court specifically set forth reasons for imposing the middle term on count 22 and, then, immediately pronounced the middle term appropriate for counts 9, 11 and 17.
Section 1237.5 reads: "No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty . . ., except where both of the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk of the court."
We granted Rodriguez permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Rodriguez on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., AARON, J.