Opinion
C082707
08-12-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN RAY THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 15F02689)
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
Defendant Steven Ray Thompson was charged with possession of heroin and possession of methamphetamine after being found with 2.5 grams of heroin and 0.5 grams of methamphetamine in his possession. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, subd. (a), 11377, subd. (a).) It was further alleged defendant had sustained three prior strike convictions and served a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 667, subd. (b), 667.5, subd. (b).)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offenses. --------
Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of heroin and possession of methamphetamine, and admitted the three prior convictions and prison term. The court subsequently exercised its discretion to dismiss the prior prison term enhancement.
On June 24, 2016, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the mitigated term of 16 months for possession of heroin, doubled to 32 months for the prior strikes pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C). The court imposed a concurrent term for possession of methamphetamine. The court found compelling and extraordinary reasons to decline to impose a restitution fine, but ordered defendant pay two $50 lab fees, along with penalty assessments, two $40 court security fees, and two $30 criminal conviction assessments. Defendant was also directed to register as a narcotics offender and awarded 840 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief in which he contends his preliminary hearing was untimely and that he was wrongly excluded from part of the proceeding. These claims are barred because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
Defendant entered a plea subsequent to the preliminary hearing. "A defendant may not appeal 'from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere,' unless he has obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); see People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790 . . . .)" (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.) Other than search and seizure issues, any error occurring prior to the plea is nonreviewable on appeal unless defendant obtains a certificate of probable cause. (§§ 1237.5, 1538.5, subd. (m); People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-76.) Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Thus, his claims are nonreviewable.
Having also undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
MURRAY, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
HOCH, J. /s/_________
RENNER, J.