Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC154916A
Jenkins, J.
Defendant and appellant William Smith appeals from a final judgment and sentence following his guilty-plea conviction on narcotics charges. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting that we conduct an independent review of the entire record on appeal. Having done so, we affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
Factual and Procedural Background
In February and March 2007, appellant was the target of a narcotics investigation by the Marin County Task Force. During the course of this investigation, appellant sold narcotics to an undercover officer on five occasions. On four occasions appellant sold the undercover officer cocaine base in the amounts of 9.6 grams, 12.8 grams, 12.4 grams and 13.1 grams. On one occasion appellant sold the undercover officer 3.0 grams of crystal methamphetamine.
Based on these events, the Marin County District Attorney’s Office (DA) filed an Information against appellant on April 17, 2008. In counts one, two, three and five, the DA alleged appellant sold cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11352, subdivision (a). In count four, the DA alleged appellant sold methamphetamine in violation of section 11379, subdivision (a). The Information also contained various prior-felony allegations, including one pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The Information also alleged that the methamphetamine in count four was in crystal form, making it an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes under Penal Code section 1170.74.
Further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.
On July 23, 2008, appellant appeared in trial court for a change-of-plea hearing after filling out a guilty-plea waiver in which he stated he wished to plead guilty to count four (sale of crystal methamphetamine) and count five (sale of cocaine), and admit prior-felony allegations pursuant to Penal Code, sections 1170.12 and 1203. The court explained to appellant that under the plea bargain he would receive a sentence of ten years in return for his guilty plea and admissions. The court further explained that defendant faced a maximum sentence of twelve years, but if the court sentenced him to more than ten years, he would be able to withdraw his plea. Defendant acknowledged his understanding of these matters.
The court advised defendant that in pleading guilty he would be giving up certain constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial, to confront and examine witnesses, and the right to remain silent. Defendant acknowledged he understood and waived those rights. Defendant stated that other than what was discussed in court and set forth in the plea agreement, he had been made no other promises to induce him to plead guilty. Thereafter, defendant entered a plea of guilty to counts four and five of the Information. Defendant also admitted a prior felony allegation pursuant to Penal Code, sections 1170.12 and 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), and a prior felony allegation pursuant to Penal Code, section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). Defense counsel stipulated that the preliminary hearing transcript provided a factual basis for the plea. The court then accepted appellant’s pleas and waivers after finding they were made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.
A sentencing hearing was held on August 20, 2008. The trial court imposed the mid-term sentence four years on count five, doubled under the Three Strikes Law (Penal Code, section 1170.12), for a term of eight years. On count four, the trial court imposed a consecutive term of one-third of the mid-term of three years, doubled under the Three Strikes Law, for a total of two years. The total state prison sentence imposed was ten years, as agreed under the plea bargain.
On October 9, 2008, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. On January 6, 2009, appellate counsel wrote to the sentencing judge requesting that the court correct a clerical error in the Abstract of Judgment. Appellate counsel explained that, as originally filed, the Abstract of Judgment showed a sentencing enhancement pursuant to Penal Code, section 667.5, subdivision (b) had been imposed and stayed, and that this sentencing enhancement was not part of the oral pronouncement of judgment. In response, the trial court filed an amended Abstract of Judgment on January 20, 2009, which accurately reflects the oral pronouncement of judgment.
Discussion
As required under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note appellant’s counsel has filed a Wende brief raising no arguable issue, counsel informed appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and appellant did not file such a brief. We have also independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find none.
A plea of guilty “admits all matters essential to the conviction” (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895), and with the exception of search and seizure issues, waives “all errors arising prior to entry of a guilty plea.” (People v. Kaanehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, 9.) Following a guilty plea entered upon a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights, appellant, represented by competent counsel, was sentenced to a total term of ten years in state prison. The sentence imposed was lawful (see Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.420 and 4.425) and in accordance with appellant’s valid plea agreement. Having ensured appellant received adequate and effective appellate review, we thus affirm the trial court’s judgment. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 112-113.)
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness, P. J. Pollak, J.