IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
December 29, 2010
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
OLAF PHILLIP LARUM, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR560842
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sepulveda, J.
P. v. Larum CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on his plea. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find no arguable issues and affirm.
Defendant was charged with one felony count of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)*fn1 and one felony count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), after he and a woman were caught on May 5, 2009, with items taken from an uninhabited home that was listed for sale in Sebastopol. The information also alleged a prior strike and that defendant was ineligible for probation because of three prior felony convictions (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)). On January 22, 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to second degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b)), admitted the prior strike, and waived his right to file a motion to strike the three strikes allegation pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
The trial court continued the matter several times so that defendant could confer with his attorney about the possibility of withdrawing his plea because he was unhappy that he would not be committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC), and so that he could obtain his voluminous medical records to take to prison. Defendant was sentenced on May 6, 2010 pursuant to his plea agreement to a total of 32 months in prison (the lower term of 16 months, doubled because of the prior strike), and he also was ordered to pay various fines and fees. Proceeding in pro per, defendant wrote a letter to the trial court identifying the sentence he received and "[a]sking for an appeal on the failure of my right to competant [sic] legal counsil [sic]"; the letter was filed with the trial court on July 2, 2010. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304 [notice of appeal liberally construed; sufficient if identifies order being appealed].)
No error appears in the entry of defendant's plea, or in the sentencing proceedings. Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights prior to the entry of his plea, as well as the consequences of his plea. The court found the plea to be free and voluntary, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. He complained in his letter to the court seeking an appeal that his counsel's performance was deficient. To the extent this complaint affects the validity of his plea or the legality of the proceedings, it is not a proper basis of appeal, as he did not seek a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) In any event, the record on appeal reveals no deficiency in counsel's performance. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.) Defendant also stated in his letter that he was dissatisfied that he was not committed to "a program" or CRC; however, no error appears in the trial court's ordering the sentence specified in defendant's plea agreement.
There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.