Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC147845A
STEIN, J.
Counsel for defendant Sean M. Wurzburg has filed an opening brief in which he raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel represents defendant has been apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has not filed a brief. We have conducted the review requested by counsel, and finding no issues requiring further briefing, affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was arrested after witnesses reported a stabbing. A witness told police defendant had attended a barbeque together with the victims, Murff and Abbott. The witness later heard screaming coming from Abbott’s apartment, and heard defendant threaten Abbott. The witness told Murff to go and calm defendant down. Murff returned about 10 minutes later seeking help with a stab wound. Murff reported he had been on the telephone when defendant, for no reason, suddenly attacked him. Murff saw blood gushing from his arm. Defendant said, “Want me to stab you again?” Abbott claimed he had sustained a large cut over his eyebrow and a black eye. Defendant admitted he had fought with Abbott and had stabbed Murff. He told probation he had been with Abbott and Murff, drinking heavily. They went to Abbott’s residence, where at some point defendant and Abbot got into a fight. Defendant left with Murff. Defendant later was on the phone when Murff began provoking him by throwing pennies at him, kicking him and slapping him in the face. Defendant stated he got angry and acted impulsively, saying he would not have done it had he been sober.
On June 16, 2006, defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and admitted he had inflicted great bodily injury on Murff. Other charges filed against defendant were dismissed with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754). The court imposed the lower term of two years for the offense and awarded defendant 218 days’ actual credits plus 108 days’ conduct credits, for a total award of 326 credits. It imposed a restitution fine of $1,200, a parole revocation fine of $1,200 and a court security fee of $20, and ordered defendant to provide samples and specimens for DNA testing.
DISCUSSION
By pleading guilty to the charges, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the charged offenses, and therefore is not entitled to review of any issue that merely goes to the question of his guilt or innocence. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) In addition, Penal Code section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) bar a defendant from raising on appeal any question going to the legality of the proceedings, including the validity of the plea, without first obtaining a certificate of probable cause for the appeal from the trial court. Without such a certificate, a defendant may obtain review only of issues relating to the validity of a search and seizure or to proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed. (People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.) Defendant has not obtained a certificate of probable cause.
There are no issues relating to the legality of a search or seizure.
Defendant was represented at sentencing by an attorney, who had made every attempt to find some alternative for defendant other than a prison term. Defendant himself requested no further efforts be made to prevent him from being sent to prison. The sentence imposed was authorized by Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), and is the lowest of the three authorized terms. The restitution and parole revocation fines were properly imposed, as was a $20 court security fee. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b); 1202.45; 1465.8, subd. (a)(1).) The court properly ordered defendant to provide samples and specimens. (Pen. Code, § 296, subd. (a).)
Defendant had served 278 days in jail, but he also had committed a misdemeanor for which he was sentenced to a term of 90 days in jail. Pursuant to Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (b), defendant was not entitled to credit for time served on the misdemeanor conviction. The court therefore properly credited him with only 188 days time served plus 49 good time and 49 work time credits.
In sum, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no issues requiring further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MARCHIANO, P. J., MARGULIES, J.