P. v. McCulley
Filed 8/10/06 P. v. McCulley CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TYLER MITCHELL McCULLEY, Defendant and Appellant. | G035777 (Super. Ct. Nos. 04CF0379 & 04CF0832) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard F. Toohey, Judge. Affirmed.
Tyler Mitchell McCulley, in pro. per.; James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which sets forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on appellant's behalf. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. Appellant submitted a supplemental brief in which he raises numerous arguments. Many of those arguments are foreclosed by appellant's failure to timely file a request for a certificate of probable cause. Therefore, only those arguments relating to appellant's sentence or other matters occurring after his guilty plea are cognizable on appeal. (In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 657-659; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 45(e).) Additionally, because the sentence imposed was within the parameters set by appellant's negotiated plea agreement, he cannot challenge the sentence in the absence of a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766.)
Appellant argues a clerical error in the probation report regarding the ending date of his juvenile probation resulted in the trial court's refusal to place him on probation rather than sentencing him to 25 years in prison. Appellant's guilty plea to one count of violating Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c)(2) made him statutorily ineligible for probation, so any alleged error in the probation report was harmless. (Pen. Code, § 1203.065, subd. (a).)
Finally, appellant argues he pleaded guilty to and was sentenced for counts that were dismissed after the preliminary hearing. Having fully reviewed the record, we have concluded that, following the preliminary hearing, an original information was filed in Orange County Superior Court case No. 04CF0379. In that information, the counts with which appellant was charged were renumbered. Appellant pleaded guilty to and was
sentenced for only those criminal counts for which he was held to answer following the preliminary hearing.
The judgment is affirmed.
FYBEL, J.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
ARONSON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Real Estate Attorney.
