P. v. Keller





Filed 2/26/13 P. v. Keller CA1/3

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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



FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
THREE




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM ROBERT KELLER, Defendant and Appellant.

A136341 (href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC075342A)

William
Keller appeals
from a judgment and sentence following a guiltyname="SR;253"> plea. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief
requesting our independent review of the record
pursuant to name="SR;274">href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for
appeal. We conclude there are no issues that warrant review, and affirm.

BACKGROUND

Defendant William
Keller was apprehended in the parking lot of a supermarket after he walked out
with a bottle of Jack Daniels concealed in his pants.

He was charged by
information under Penal
Code section 666 with petty theft by a person who has served a prior term in a
penal institution.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title="">[1] The information also alleged Keller had
committed four prior felonies that made him ineligible for probation under
section 1203, subdivision (b)(e)(4); served two prior terms in state prison
under section 667.5, subdivision (b); and had a prior conviction for robbery, a
serious felony within the meaning of section 1170.12 subdivision (c)(1). In a negotiated disposition, Keller entered a
no contest plea to the felony charge of petty
theft with a prior under section 666, and admitted the truth of the prior
robbery alleged under section 1170.12.
The remaining allegations were dismissed.

At sentencing,
Keller moved to strike the prior robbery conviction in the interests of
justice. The court granted the motion
over the district attorney’s opposition.
Keller was sentenced to the mid-level term of two years and awarded 137
days of presentence credits.

>DISCUSSION

Keller
was advised of the rights he would waive by entry of his plea, and the plea’s
potential consequences. His href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">counsel stipulated to a factual basis for
the plea based upon the police reports, and we concur based upon our review of
the preliminary hearing testimony. The
court determined the plea was free and voluntary.

There
is no basis from our review of the record to question the court’s exercise of
discretion to strike the prior robbery conviction. Thus, we deny Keller’s request that we take
judicial notice of the reasons stated on the minute order of June 22, 2012,
that was not included within the clerk’s transcript.

This
court has reviewed the entire record on appeal. His counsel advises us that Keller has been
informed of his right to file a supplemental
brief. He has not done so. There are no issues that require further
briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.





_________________________

Siggins,
J.





We concur:





_________________________

Pollak, Acting P.J.





_________________________

Jenkins, J.