P. v. Bristow
Filed 8/7/06 P. v. Bristow CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER P. BRISTOW, Defendant and Appellant. | D048454 (Super. Ct. No. SCN206061) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.
After waiving his right to appeal any stipulated sentence, Christopher P. Bristow entered negotiated a guilty plea to three counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The court sentenced him to a stipulated term of seven years in prison: the five-year upper term on one count with consecutive one-year terms on the two other counts (one-third the middle term). The court issued a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).) Because Bristow entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Bristow's waiver of the right to appeal is valid; (2) whether Bristow's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; and (3) whether Bristow's trial counsel provided effective assistance.
We granted Bristow permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Bristow on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Real Estate Attorney.
