In re Mills
Filed 9/9/11 In re Mills CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERTO SOTELO, II, Defendant and Appellant. | D059076 (Super. Ct. No. SCD220231) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
As part of a plea agreement, Roberto Sotelo, II, entered a guilty plea to one count of attempted robbery (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 664 & 211), admitted two serious felony prior convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and admitted one serious/violent felony prior conviction (strike prior) within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). The parties stipulated to strike one of the strike priors and agreed to a sentence of 12 years, eight months in prison. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed as were additional charges pending in another case. Sotelo was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered Sotelo the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but Sotelo has failed to respond.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The change of plea form filed by Sotelo acknowledged that he had "attempted by force and/or fear to take personal property from the person, possession and immediate presence of another."[2] Since the trial court denied a certificate of probable cause this appeal could not challenge the validity of the plea or the facts underlying the charges. Accordingly, we will not set forth the facts surrounding the underlying conviction.
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 the possible, but not arguable issues:[3]
1. Whether Sotelo's plea was constitutionally valid; and
2. Whether there is an adequate factual basis for the plea.
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Sotelo on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
HALLER, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
[2] The trial court acknowledged that it had read the transcript of the preliminary hearing in this case.
[3] We set out the "possible issues" raised in the brief, noting however, that the trial court denied a certificate of probable cause for this appeal. Accordingly, Sotelo cannot challenge the validity of his guilty plea on appeal because of the absence of a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; People v Manriquez (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1170. Thus the issues we set forth are not even "possible issues" in light of the procedural posture of the case.
