P. v. Bates
Filed 4/29/08 P. v. Bates CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE JAMES BATES, Defendant and Appellant. | E044411 (Super.Ct.No. FSB703581) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. James M. Dorr, Judge. Affirmed.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Willie James Bates (defendant) appeals from a judgment following his conviction of one count of commercial burglary for which he received a stipulated sentence.
Background
Defendant was charged in a felony complaint with one count of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, 459), and one count of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, 666). It was further alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a) (d) [Strikes law]), and that he had previously suffered five prior convictions for which he had served separate prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)).
On September 19, 2007, defendant entered into a negotiated plea bargain in which he agreed to plead guilty to count one, the commercial burglary count, and admit the Strike, in return for a stipulated sentence of 32 months, and dismissal of the remaining counts and enhancements. The plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal from the conviction and judgment. Defendant was immediately sentenced to the agreed term and credited with 18 days of presentence custody credit.
Defendant appealed, challenging both the sentence and the validity of the guilty plea. He requested a certificate of probable cause claiming he was coerced into accepting the plea agreement because his girlfriend, who was also his codefendant, was pregnant and he was told he could get a sentence of 11 years in state prison if he went to trial. The trial court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.
Discussion
At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1386, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record, including the grounds asserted in the notice of appeal pertaining to the alleged coerced plea of guilty. First, the waivers made by defendant in connection with his change of plea included a waiver of the right to appeal from the conviction or sentence.
Second, defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, such as would allow him to challenge the validity of his plea agreement. (Pen. Code, 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096.) Third, because the sentence was an integral part of the plea agreement, a challenge to the sentence is a challenge to the guilty plea, which requires a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79, 84.)
Finally, even if a certificate of probable cause had been issued, defendants challenge to the validity of his plea would not have merit. The fact that he may have experienced stress after being informed of the penal consequences of his criminal act, or the fact his girlfriend was pregnant, do not constitute coercion (People v. Huricks (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1208); a guilty plea does not become involuntary because a reluctant defendant acknowledges the strength of the case against him and the possible penalty which may ensue. (In re Cowans (1970) 2 Cal.3d 733, 740.)
Defendant was effectively represented by counsel in the trial court as well as on appeal.
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
GAUT
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
