Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County Super. Ct. No. RIF150273. Gordon R. Burkhart, Judge. Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
McKinster Acting P.J.
I
INTRODUCTION
On May 20, 2009, in Riverside Superior Court, defendant and appellant Tyrone Rose entered into a plea agreement wherein he pled guilty to a single count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, under Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). Defendant also admitted a prior conviction in 1999 as a prison prior under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and a strike prior from 1994 under Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (c) & (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). The agreement stipulated a sentence of seven years in state prison.
The trial court immediately sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of seven years in state prison: middle term of three years, doubled, plus one year for the prison prior. The court also imposed a $200 restitution fine and a $200 parole revocation restitution fine under Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, respectively.
On June 29, 2009, defendant filed a notice of appeal. Within the notice of appeal, defendant indicated the grounds for the appeal were “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea” and that the appeal “challenges the validity of the plea admission.” Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied the certificate of probable cause.
II
ANALYSIS
At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so, providing us with a 10-page handwritten brief. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record.
In his supplemental brief, defendant challenges the validity of his plea agreement. In sum, defendant claims that (1) his counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) “he want[s] to take back his plea for a lower deal or a new trial.”
Notwithstanding defendant’s argument, the record is clear that defendant pled guilty, admitted to suffering a prior strike conviction and a prior prison term, and agreed to the imposed sentence. Because both of defendant’s contentions on appeal challenge his guilty plea, a certificate of probable cause is required. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 84.) Here, defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause; therefore, he may not challenge the validity of his plea agreement. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Richli J. Miller J.