P. v. White
Filed 5/27/08 P. v. White CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MYRON OMAR WHITE, Defendant and Appellant. | A120310 (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC153335) |
Defendant Myron Omar White appeals from a judgment and sentence of seven years four months to state prison after a negotiated disposition. Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief in which he raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted that review and find no arguable issues and affirm the judgment. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so.
Background
The preliminary hearing transcript reveals that defendant passed numerous checks at a San Rafael liquor store which were later returned by the bank. The various checks were payable to Myron White from checks that the payers had not authorized. On May 5, 2007, police detained the defendant near the liquor store after he tried to pass a $575 check that came from a checkbook from a stolen backpack. Defendant ran off when the liquor store clerk motioned to the owner to call the police.
Proceedings
The information charged defendant with six counts of commercial burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459,[1]and six counts of forgery in violation of section 470, subdivision (d). The information also alleged a prior serious felony strike conviction for a 1992 robbery conviction and two prior prison term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
After a hearing, the court declined to exercise its discretion to strike defendants prior serious felony conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
In a negotiated disposition, defendant with the assistance of counsel, signed a plea of guilty form in which he waived his constitutional rights and his right to appeal except as to sentencing error. In return for a guilty plea to one count of violation section 459, one count of violation section 470, subdivision (d), and admitting the prior serious felony strike allegation, all other remaining counts and alleged enhancements were to be dismissed. Defendant acknowledged that he would not be granted probation and could receive up to seven years four months in state prison.
After a sentencing hearing, the court sentenced defendant to seven years four months to state prison, imposing three years for violation of section 459, doubled to six years for the prior serious felony strike, and a consecutive eight months for violation of section 470, subdivision (d.), doubled to sixteen months for the prior strike offense. The court also imposed appropriate fines and awarded credit for time served.
Discussion
By pleading guilty to the charges, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime, and therefore is not entitled to review of any issue that goes to the question of guilt or innocence. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) In addition, section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) bar appeals following a plea of guilty that challenge the validity of the plea unless the defendant has sought and obtained a certificate of probable cause. (People v.Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68.) Defendant did not submit such a certificate. Defendant, moreover, as part of his plea bargain specifically waived his right to appeal under the circumstances of this case.
Defendants notice of appeal indicates that the appeal is based on the sentence or matters occurring after the plea. The record does not reveal any such issues.
The notice of appeal also indicates the appeal is based on the denial of the Romero motion and the imposition of the upper-aggravated term. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Romero request. The court lawfully imposed the upper term.
Counsel represented defendant throughout the proceedings. There were no sentencing errors.
After a full review of the record, the judgment is affirmed.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Swager, J.
______________________
Margulies, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
