Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. FVI900056, Miriam I. Morton, Judge.
Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster, Acting P.J.
Defendant appeals her conviction by plea of one count of felony child abuse in violation of Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a). Finding no error after conducting an independent review of the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
Defendant’s codefendant, her fiancé, was also convicted by plea of one count of felony child abuse, but after his attorney filed a no issue brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, he filed an abandonment of his appeal. He therefore is no longer a party to this appeal.
All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A complaint was filed January 6, 2009, charging defendant with three counts of felony child abuse under section 273a, subdivision (a).
On January 16, 2009, a preliminary hearing was held. After the deputy district attorney moved to hold defendant to answer, her counsel moved to reduce the charges to misdemeanors pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b). The court denied the motion based on defendant’s prior record and the amount of time the children had been left unattended. The court then held defendant to answer and bound her and her codefendant over for trial.
On March 6, 2009, defendant and her codefendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement. She agreed to plead to count one, and in return the other two felony charges would be dismissed. She and the deputy district attorney also agreed to a sentence bargain in which defendant would be placed on probation for a period of five years and serve 180 days in local custody. Defendant executed a plea agreement waiving her constitutional rights, and the court canvassed her on all of the elements of the agreement and waiver of rights. The case was referred to the probation department, and the court pronounced judgment in accordance with the negotiated plea on April 17, 2009.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal on June 5, 2009. In her initial notice of appeal, defendant checked boxes indicating that her appeal was based on a challenge to the validity of the plea and requested a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) In her statement in support of the issuance of a certificate of probable cause, she stated that she was not guilty and she entered a plea in order to “... expedite her release date.” The court correctly denied her request for a certificate of probable cause that same date.
Thereafter, defendant filed a new notice of appeal on June 16, 2009. This time she did not check the box challenging the validity of the plea. Instead she checked a box indicating that she was appealing the sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea and do not affect its validity. She also checked a box indicating the appeal is based on a denial of a motion to suppress evidence.
There was no motion to suppress brought. Therefore, this basis of appeal is inapplicable.
FACTS
On January 2, 2009, a sheriff’s deputy responded to a citizen who had discovered a three-year-old boy unattended in a residential neighborhood around 12:56 p.m. The citizen had found the boy crying in the street behind a parked car. He had thorns in his bare feet and a nose covered with mucous. The deputy located a 13-year-old girl, the daughter of defendant, at a residence. She appeared to be developmentally disabled. Two other boys, ages two and three, were there also. The girl identified herself as the boys’ aunt. They all lived together with defendant and her fiancé after the boys’ mother dropped them off because she did not want them anymore. She did not know where defendant and the codefendant were. They had left around noon. She did not know how to get in touch with them but would call 911 if there were an emergency. She had some difficulty in reciting the correct number for 911, but eventually got it correct. She did not know her own address. She also stated that the boys were spanked with belts.
Defendant and the codefendant arrived at the house around 3:00 p.m. Defendant admitted that her daughter was a little slow but felt that she could watch the three boys for two hours as there had been no problems in the past. Defendant told the deputy that her daughter knew her cell phone number.
DISCUSSION
Defendant has appealed and pursuant to her request, we appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a statement of facts, two suggested possible issues on appeal, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the entire record. The suggested issues include: (1) whether the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to reduce the charges to misdemeanors under section 17, subdivision (b) at her preliminary hearing; and (2) whether defendant was properly advised of her constitutional rights and consequences of her plea.
We provided defendant with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so.
With regard to the section 17, subdivision (b) motion, it was made at the end of the preliminary hearing before the motion to hold to answer was made. It antedates the entry of plea, and consequently it is not preserved as an appealable issue after the entry of plea. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.)
The other issue regarding advisement of constitutional rights and consequences of the plea is directed at the validity of the plea and cannot be raised without a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5) One was not issued in this case. In any event, we have reviewed the record regarding the entry of plea and find no error even if we could reach the issue. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 83.)
Defendant’s claim in her initial notice of appeal that she was not guilty of the offense is not cognizable on appeal either. A plea of guilty constitutes an admission of every element of the charge and constitutes a conclusive admission of guilt. Defendant cannot raise her innocence after a plea of guilty even if she had obtained a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 125-127.)
We have now completed our independent review of the record, and we find no arguable issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Richli, J., Miller, J.