Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ct.No. FWV36296 Shahla Sabet, Judge.
Randall T. Lookout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.
Defendant pled guilty to carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215(a)) and admitted having suffered a strike prior (§ 667 (b)-(i)) and two priors for which he served prison terms. (§ 667.5(b).) As part of his plea bargain, he waived his right to appeal his motion to suppress issues and “all other matters.” He was sentenced to the agreed-to term of 20 years in prison. Despite his waiver of his appeal rights, the trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which was read and considered.
Facts
On December 2, 2005, defendant opened the door of the victim’s car, pointed a gun at her and ordered her out of her car and drove off in it. {CT 29, 30, 33}
Defendant’s contentions
In his two-plus page personal supplemental brief, defendant repeats the contention he made unsuccessfully below during his motion to withdraw his plea that he was under the influence of psychotic medication at the time he entered his plea. However, he does not contend that the medication compelled him to enter a bargain he would not otherwise have entered had he not been taking it. Moreover, nothing in the record, other than defendant’s own self serving statements during the motion to withdraw the plea, support his assertion that he was taking such medication at the time of the entry of the plea. In fact, he told the trial court at that time that he was not.
Defendant next asserts that the trial court should not have been presiding over his case because the court’s sister had been the victim of a crime. Nothing in the record before us supports this assertion.
The two remaining issues the defendant addressed deal with his guilt of the crime. However, by his plea, he admitted guilt and may not now challenge it. (People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1177-1178; In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170, 1181.)
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, J., GAUT, J.