Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ct. No. SCD205770, David J. Danielsen, Judge.
O'ROURKE, J.
Kerry Steffan entered a negotiated guilty plea to stalking while a temporary restraining order was in effect (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)) and evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to three years eight months in prison: the three-year middle term for stalking and eight months (one-third middle term) for evading an officer. Steffan appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In late 2006 Steffan's wife, Tina, obtained a temporary restraining order. The restraining order became permanent on April 4, 2007. Between March 28 and April 4, 2007, Steffan went to the parking lot of Tina's workplace, to a recreation center where she and her children were attending an Easter egg hunt and to a park overlooking her house. On April 6 a police officer found Steffan at the park again. Steffan drove away and ran a red light as the officer followed. The officer tried to stop Steffan. Steffan failed to stop; ran numerous red lights; drove on the left side of the road to avoid a spike strip, causing officers to run from the roadway; crossed a double yellow line and a freeway median; failed to signal; drove at unsafe speeds; and drove on the shoulder. After one hour and 45 minutes, Steffan stopped, got out of his car and fled on foot. The foot chase ended when an officer shot him with a Taser.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to 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, he lists, as a possible, but not arguable issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sentence it had indicated as the lid rather than granting probation or imposing the lower term.
We granted Steffan permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded, contending (1) Tina manufactured the charges, he did not violate the restraining order or stalk her—he went to the Easter egg hunt to see his children, and when the police chased him, he wanted to stop in a public area for his own safety because the police had threatened him; (2) his attorney coerced him into accepting the plea bargain by saying that if he went to trial, he would get nine to 11 years and attorney's fees would be higher; (3) the probation report recommended a three-year concurrent sentence; (4) he should have been placed on probation; and (5) the court abused its discretion by ordering $3,710 in restitution.
Absent a certificate of probable cause, a defendant cannot challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The record before this court does not include a certificate of probable cause. As a result, Steffan cannot challenge the validity of his guilty plea, which included an admission that he was guilty of stalking and evading an officer. At the change of plea hearing, Steffan acknowledged he had read, understood and initialed and signed the change of plea form. He initialed a box on the form stating he was entering the plea freely and voluntarily. When reviewing an appeal, we are limited to the record before us (People v. Roberts (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 387, 394), and there is nothing in the record reflecting counsel's alleged statements or indicating Steffan was coerced into entering the plea. Nor did the court abuse its discretion by denying probation and imposing consecutive sentences. It properly denied probation because Steffan had a long and consistent history of abusive behavior and, if not imprisoned, would be a danger to Tina and others. (People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 233.) It properly imposed consecutive sentences because the crimes were separate offenses, committed on separate occasions against separate victims. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.425.) The court was not required to accept the probation officer's recommended sentence. (People v. Warner (1978) 20 Cal.3d 678, 683.) Finally, Steffan was advised, before he entered his plea, that he would have to pay full restitution to all victims. The court properly ordered $3,710 in restitution for the economic losses Tina suffered as a result of Steffan's crimes. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).)
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Steffan has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., IRION, J.