Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County Super. Ct. No. 06CF0822, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
After the trial court heard and denied a motion to substitute appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), defendant Edgar Viveros entered into a negotiated plea bargain. In exchange for a stipulated five-year prison sentence plus payment of restitution, defendant pleaded guilty to sale or transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), reckless evasion of a peace officer causing serious bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 2800.3), unlawful vehicle taking with a prior such conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and participating in a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a))
Defendant waived a probation report and agreed to immediate sentencing. The court pronounced judgment and sentenced defendant pursuant to the plea agreement.
Three weeks later, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The court denied the motion.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal purporting to challenge the validity of the plea. After the court denied his a request for a certificate of probable cause, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal contesting the “sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.”
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He did not argue against defendant but advised the court he had not found any issues to present on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], counsel identified several possible, but not arguable, issues to aid us in our independent review of the record: (1) was defendant’s Marsden motion correctly denied; (2) was the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea proper; (3) were the presentence custody credits correctly calculated; and (4) was the guilty plea induced by incorrect advice or ineffective representation by defense counsel.
The first two issues are not cognizable on appeal because defendant did not secure a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304, subd. (a)(1); People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76 [certificate required to appeal validity of guilty plea]; People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244-245 [challenge to defense counsel’s pre-plea ineffectiveness requires certificate].) On the record here, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the certificate of probable cause. (Ramis v. Superior Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 325, 329.) And although no certificate of probable cause is required to assert a claim regarding custody credits, the court awarded proper presentence credits under Penal Code section 4019.
The record does not support defendant’s claim that trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty, gave incorrect advice or was incompetent. Defendant stated on the record he was voluntarily and freely pleading guilty after discussing the charges with his lawyer and the court so found. To the extent the claim is based on matters outside the appellate record, it is more appropriately raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, as counsel acknowledges. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.)
We granted defendant 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, J., IKOLA, J.