People v. Alford CA1/1

Filed 6/28/23 P. v. Alford CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A167027

v. (Mendocino County DELBERT WARREN ALFORD, Super. Ct. No. 22CR02906) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Delbert Warren Alford appeals from a judgment and sentence entered on his no contest plea to one count of failure to register as a convicted sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.015, subd. (a).) The court thereafter imposed the negotiated disposition, sentencing him to a 16-month sentence. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm. Penal Code section 1237.5 generally precludes an appeal from a judgment of conviction after a plea of no contest or guilty unless the defendant has applied for, and the trial court has granted, a certificate of

1

probable cause. There are two exceptions: (1) a challenge to a search and seizure ruling, as to which an appeal is proper under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) post-plea sentencing issues. (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; see People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780.) Defendant requested, but was denied a certificate of probable cause. He did not file a suppression motion, and the court made no search and seizure ruling. Therefore, our review is of the post-plea record. It shows defendant was ably represented by counsel. Defendant completed and executed a written felony plea form. The court determined defendant’s no contest plea was knowingly and intelligently made. There was no abuse of discretion in sentencing, and the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the negotiated disposition. (See People v. Tang (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 669, 679 [“ ‘ “severity of the sentence and the placing of defendant on probation rest in the sound discretion of the trial court” ’ ”].) The court properly ordered custody credits and imposed fines and fees. After a review of the record, we find no arguable issues and affirm the judgment.