Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC070227A.
MARGULIES, J.
Following his plea of no contest to one count of possession of marijuana for sale and admission of one out-of-state felony conviction, defendant was sentenced to 32 months in state prison. Defendant has filed a timely appeal from the judgment of conviction. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, defense counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing. Counsel has notified defendant he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Upon review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUREAL BACKGROUND
Because the present appeal is taken from a no contest plea, we need only concisely recite the facts pertinent to the underlying conviction as necessary to our limited review on appeal. The facts are taken from the probation report.
On December 29, 2009 at approximately 11:16 a.m., defendant was contacted by Belmont police for jaywalking. He admitted to possessing marijuana indicating he had some in his backpack. A probation search revealed a Ziploc baggie and a glass jar containing approximately 50.1 grams of marijuana, as well as a Planter’s nuts container with over $330. A digital scale with marijuana residue on it was located in defendant’s pants pocket. Defendant showed police his medicinal marijuana card. Defendant told police he used about one gram of marijuana per day for chronic back pain and arthritis. When the officers examined his cell phone, however, they discovered text messages indicating the marijuana was for sale. After defendant was confronted with the text messages, he admitted to purchasing approximately two ounces of marijuana per week from an individual in Redwood City. In his written statement to probation, defendant admitted he “needed money for rent around 80 dollars so I texted a couple friends, some have prescriptions for medical marijuana, a few did not, I told them ‘I had eights for 40 need cash fast.’ ”
An information was filed on January 26, 2010 charging defendant with one count of possession for sale of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and one count of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). The information further alleged defendant had suffered two prior convictions, a 2005 Texas strike conviction for aggravated assault in violation of Texas Penal Code section 22.02 within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667.5, subdivision (b), 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1), and 1203, subdivision (e)(4), and a 2009 California prior conviction for possession for sale of marijuana.
On May 25, 2010, pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled no contest to possession for sale of marijuana and admitted the Texas strike conviction with the understanding he would not be sentenced to more than 32 months and he could file a motion to strike the Texas conviction. All other counts and allegations were dismissed.
The trial court subsequently denied defendant’s Romero motion to strike the prior Texas conviction. Defendant was sentenced to 32 months in state prison, the low term of 16 months doubled under the three strikes law with credit for time served of 325 days.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal. By entering a plea of no contest, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime, and therefore is not entitled to review of any issue that goes to the question of whether he is guilty or not guilty. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) Without a certificate of probable cause, defendant cannot contest the validity of his plea; the only issues cognizable on appeal are issues relating to the validity of a denial of a motion to suppress or issues relating to matters arising after the plea was entered. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).)
Because no certificate of probable cause has been filed, the only issue pertinent to this appeal is appellant’s sentence and more specifically, the court’s denial of his Romero motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).)
In People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 (Williams), our Supreme Court explained the extent to which, and the circumstances under which, a trial court could dismiss a prior strike pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (a), and its prior holding in Romero: “We therefore believe that, in ruling whether to strike or vacate a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation or finding under the Three Strikes law, on its own motion, ‘in furtherance of justice’ pursuant to Penal Code section 1385[, subdivision] (a), or in reviewing such a ruling, the court in question must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.” (Williams, at p. 161.) Applying the principles laid down in Williams, appellate courts have consistently affirmed trial court refusals to dismiss prior strikes under section 1385 when the moving defendant has either a long criminal record and/or a poor record on parole and probation.
Here defendant, who was 25 years old at the time of his sentencing, had accumulated a felony criminal record and at the time of his plea to possession for sale of marijuana was on felony probation for the same offense. There was, thus, clearly no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of his Romero motion. In all other respects, defendant’s sentence was authorized by law.
No further briefing is required on any other postplea issues. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P.J., Banke, J.