1

Filed 12/30/15 P. v. Cromwell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RYAN JAMES CROMWELL

, Defendant and Appellant. A 14 5950

( Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR 1502525 )

Appellant Ryan James Cromwell appeals from h is six

- year state prison sentence in

the above

- referenced criminal case. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in

which no issues are raised

, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as

required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant

has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal

, and that an

independent review under Wend e instead was being requested. Appellant was also

advised of h is right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses

to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant

personally.

We note that a ppellant has not obtained a certificate of probable cause, which is

required by Penal Code 1 section 1237.5 when a defendant seeks to appeal from a

judgment entered following a guilty or no contest plea. A certificate is not required when

the notice of appeal states, as appellant’s does here , that the appeal is based upon the

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless
otherwise indicated.2

sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the

plea. Accordingly, we have reviewed the wh ole record pursuant to People v. Wende

,

supra , 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon grounds

for appeal arising after entry of the plea. Having done so, we conclude that there is no

arguable issue on appeal.

PROCEDURAL AND MATERIAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND O F CASE

A four

- count felony complaint was filed by the Humboldt County District

Attorney’s Office on June 4, 2015 , charging appellant with one count of first degree

burglary ( § 4 59) one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle ( V eh

. Code

, § 10851 ), one

count of failing to register upon release from incarceration ( § 290.015 , subd. (a) ) , and one

count of resisting or obstructing a peace officer or emergency medical technician ( § 148

,
subd. (a)(1) ) . The complaint also alleged that, as to counts one and two, appellant had

suffered two prior convictions for which he served a term in state prison within the

preceding five years, within the meaning of section 667.5. Appellant entered pleas of not

guilty to the charges and denied the spe cial allegations.

On June 17, 2015, appellant accepted a plea disposition that had be en offered by

the prosecution. By this negotiated plea, appellant pleaded guilty to count s one and four

( residential burglary and resisting a peace officer)

. In return for his guilty pleas, both

sides agreed that appellant would receive a six

- year state prison sentence, of which he

would be required to serve 85 percent . Appellant was given a total of 19 days custody

credit for time served. Restitution, fines and penalt ies required by law were also

imposed, along with other conditions. As part of the disposition the prosecution also

agreed to dismiss the rem aining counts and allegations. When the plea was accepted in

court, appellant was fully advised of the rights he w as waiving by entering his plea.

CONCLUSIONS BASED UP ON INDEPENDENT RECOR D REVIEW

Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious

issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal.3

We also discern no error in the plea disposition or in sentencing. The sentence

appellant received, and the restitution fines

, penalties , and conditions imposed were

supported by the law and facts. At all times appellant was represented by counsel.

DISPO SITION

Th e judgment is affirmed.4 _________________________ RUVOLO, P. J.

We concur:

_________________________ REARDON, J.

_________________________ STREETER, J.

A145950, People v. Cromwell