Opinion
D059241 Super. Ct. No. SCD222877
09-20-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL G. WILSON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles R. Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Michael G. Wilson entered a guilty plea to one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and admitted three prison priors within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). After the denial of a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Wilson was sentenced to a stipulated term of six years in prison. Wilson obtained a certificate of probable cause and filed a timely notice of appeal.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 368 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered Wilson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but Wilson has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since Wilson was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea we take the facts from the probation officer's report. On May 10, 2009, Wilson broke into the laundry room of an apartment complex. Wilson pried open the coin box on the dryer. In so doing, Wilson left a blood stain on the dryer. DNA recovered from that stain matched Wilson's DNA.
Following his guilty plea, new counsel was appointed for Wilson and he brought a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Wilson contended that his counsel gave him erroneous advice as to the amount of good time credits he could receive as against his prison sentence if he was convicted of the charged first degree burglary. Through his own research after the plea, Wilson determined counsel's advice was wrong. He argued in the trial court he would not have entered a guilty plea to the bargain offered by the prosecution had he known the correct custody credit he would have earned if convicted of the charged offense. Wilson also contended that counsel advised him he would be released on bail if he entered a guilty plea, but instead the court remanded him to custody after the plea.
Trial counsel testified that he did not tell Wilson he would be released on bail following his guilty plea. Counsel also testified his file notes do not indicate what he may have told Wilson about custody credits. Counsel had no recollection of telling Wilson that he would have to serve 85 percent of a sentence if convicted of the charged offense. Counsel said he was aware of the correct custody credit formula for the charged offense.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, the brief identifies one possible, but not arguable issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wilson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 368 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Wilson on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McINTYRE, J.