COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
December 8, 2010
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
MICHAEL MULLALLY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed. (Super. Ct. No. SCD217867)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Huffman, J.
P. v. Mullally CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Michael Mullally entered a guilty plea to one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) as part of a negotiated plea agreement. In addition Mullally admitted being in violation of probation in three separate felony cases. The parties stipulated to a 16-month prison term in all of the cases to run concurrently. In the change of plea form Mullally admitted that he possessed property knowing it was stolen. Mullally was sentenced to the stipulated term.
Mullally filed a notice of appeal and made two separate requests for a certificate of probable cause. Both requests were denied.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. Mullally has filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf raising a number of contentions, which are not based on the record on appeal. For example, Mullally criticizes his trial counsel and the trial judge for alleged collusion and for failing to reduce the current offense to a misdemeanor, even though Mullally stipulated to a 16-month prison term for the current offense. We find nothing in Mullally's supplemental brief that raises any arguable issues based on the record on appeal.
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to both Wende and Anders. We have considered the question of whether Mullally was fully advised of his rights prior to the entry of his guilty plea. The trial court examined Mullally as to his understanding of his change of plea. In addition, Mullally signed and initialed a change of plea form which thoroughly set forth his trial rights and the consequences of his change of plea. We find nothing in the record to raise an arguable issue regarding the entry of the plea.
We have also considered the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the requests for certificates of probable cause. Once again there is nothing in the record on which an arguable issue could be based. The rambling statements attached to the requests focus primarily on his criticism of both trial counsel and the trial judge, including allegations that the two had a homosexual relationship. In short, there is nothing in either request which would raise an arguable issue regarding the trial court's denial of a certificate of probable cause.
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende and Anders and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Mullally on this appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. O'ROURKE, J.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.