People v. Martin CA4/3

Filed 2/26/13 P. v. Martin CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G047278

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11NF2564)

JEFFREY STUART MARTIN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig E. Robison, Judge. Affirmed. Michelle C. Zehner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent

After the trial court denied defendant Jeffrey Stuart Martin’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, he entered guilty pleas to charges of possessing a controlled substance for sale and transporting a controlled substance, admitted suffering several prior felony convictions, and was sentenced to four years in prison. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The brief set forth the facts of the case and, although it suggested two questions related to the pretrial suppression motion, counsel advised us that she could not find any issues to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was given 30 days to present written argument on his own behalf and he filed a supplemental brief. In it, he complains about his trial attorney’s representation of him and challenges the validity of the vehicle stop that lead to his arrest and prosecution. The first issue is not cognizable in this appeal due to the lack of an adequate record and defendant’s failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574, 596 [without a certificate of probable cause, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “is beyond the limited issues that are reviewable on appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea”].) Defendant’s attack on the validity of the vehicle stop and the questions suggested in appellate counsel’s brief are cognizable in this appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m).) In compliance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have conducted a full examination of the record and set forth below our reasons for concluding this appeal fails to present any arguable issues.