Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF151473 Janice M. McIntyre, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6, of the Cal. Const.)
William Flenniken, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, J.
Defendant and appellant Raymond Daniel Vasquez was charged with maliciously defacing property with graffiti (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b), count 1). It was further alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1)). It was also alleged that at the time of the offense, defendant was on probation and violated the terms of that probation by the commission of the present offense. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the prior strike conviction and the probation violation. The trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon term of two years eight months.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 9, 2009, defendant pled not guilty to all charges.
On July 20, 2009, defendant withdrew his plea and entered into a plea agreement. Before accepting the plea, the court questioned him. Defendant confirmed that he had initialed and signed the plea form, that he understood everything on the form and the constitutional rights he was waiving, that no one had threatened him to plead guilty, and that he had discussed the case with his attorney. Defendant then pled guilty in open court to count 1 and admitted the prior strike conviction and probation violation. The court found a factual basis for the plea and admission when defendant pled guilty. The court subsequently sentenced him to the agreed-upon term.
On September 3, 2009, defendant filed a notice of appeal and indicated the appeal was “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.”
DISCUSSION
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 and no potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record. We have now concluded our review and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P.J., KING, J.