P. v. Garrett
Filed 1/28/13 P. v. Garrett CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DONALD EARL GARRETT,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062110
(Super. Ct.
Nos. SCD234643 &
SCD236730)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, David M. Szumowski, Judge. Affirmed.
In June
2011, in case No. SCD234643, Donald Earl Garrett entered a negotiated guilty
plea to possessing cocaine base
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted having served
two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court placed him on three years'
probation and later formally revoked probation.
In April 2012, in case No. SCD236730, Garrett entered a negotiated
guilty plea to robbery (Pen. Code,
§ 211). In May, the court
reinstated probation in case No. SCD234643 and placed Garrett on three years'
probation in case No. SCD236730. Garrett
appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In case No.
SCD234643, Garrett unlawfully possessed a useable quantity of cocaine
base. In case No. SCD236730, he
unlawfully and by means of force and fear took personal property from the
person of another.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has
filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal,
but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel lists as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Garrett was properly advised of
his constitutional rights and the
consequences of pleading guilty; and (2) whether he voluntarily waived those
rights.
We granted Garrett permission to
file a brief on his own behalf. He has
not responded. A review of the record
pursuant to Wende and
listed pursuant to Anders, has
disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Garrett has been competently represented by
counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL,
P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, J.
NARES, J.
