Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo No. F398564 Ginger E. Garrett, Judge
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
Shaylene Lorraine Walker appeals a judgment of conviction entered after she pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of possession of drugs for sale, and two counts of possession of drugs. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11350, subd. (a).) We appointed counsel to represent her in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) On September 24, 2008, we advised Walker that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that she wished to raise on appeal. We received a response from her contending that the trial court improperly denied a motion to suppress evidence raised by a codefendant in which she joined, and that her four-year prison term is excessive. She also requests to withdraw her plea and proceed to trial. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Walker's contentions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The prosecutor charged Walker with two counts of possessing methamphetamine for sale, three counts of possessing other controlled substances, possessing drug paraphernalia, three counts of receiving stolen property, five counts of forgery or possessing forged documents or counterfeiting material, identity theft, possession of a switchblade, and child endangerment. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11350, subd. (a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4140; Pen. Code, §§ 496, subd. (a), 470b, 475, subds. (b) & (c), 476, 480, 530.5, subd. (c), 653k, 273a, subd. (b).) The prosecutor also alleged that Walker committed some of the criminal offenses while on bail. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.)
On June 11, 2008, Walker, represented by counsel, received advice of and waived her constitutional rights regarding trial. She pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of possession of drugs for sale, and two counts of possession of drugs. (Counts 1, 2, 14, & 15.) The trial court sentenced her to a stipulated sentence of four years' imprisonment, consisting of a two-year midterm for possession of drugs for sale, and consecutive eight-month terms for the remaining three counts. The trial court dismissed all other counts and enhancements. It also awarded Walker 201 days' presentence custody and conduct credits, and imposed restitution fines and restitution. Walker filed a notice of appeal and the trial court denied her request for certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of her plea.
DISCUSSION
We are unable to review the motion to suppress evidence that was raised by Walker's codefendant, and joined in by Walker, because we do not have a record of the motion and ruling thereon. (People v. Siegenthaler (1972) 7 Cal.3d 465, 469.) "Matters outside the record are not generally reviewable." (6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d Ed. 2000) Criminal Appeal, § 142, p. 390.)
Plea agreements are "a recognized procedure under our judicial system" and "a desirable and essential component of the administration of justice." (People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1216.) The state and the defendant benefit from plea bargains; the defendant benefits by lessened punishment and the state by savings in the cost of trial. (Ibid.) Here the trial court could have sentenced Walker to five years' imprisonment for the four counts to which she pleaded nolo contendere, and to 12 years six months had she been convicted of all charges.
A defendant bears the burden of establishing grounds to vacate a judgment of conviction because of a wrongfully obtained plea. (People v. Suon (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1, 4.) A decision upon the motion rests in the trial court's discretion and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) Walker did not establish that her nolo contendere plea was wrongfully obtained.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J., PERREN, J.