Filed 5/28/15 P. v. Hughes CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
NATHAN OLIVER HUGHES,
Defendant and Appellant. B257593
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA417887)

THE COURT: *
Nathan Hughes (defendant) appeals followi ng his plea of “no contest” in case
No. BA417887 to two counts of attempted robbery in viola tion of Penal Code sections

664 and 211. 1 Defendant admitted the allegation th at he personally used a handgun (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and th at he had suffered a prior conv iction of a serious or violent felony (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)). Defendant wa s advised of his constitutional rights and the nature and consequences of th e plea, which he stated he understood. The trial court expressly found defendant’s waivers and plea were voluntary, knowing and intelligent.

* BOREN, P.J., CHAVEZ , J., HOFFSTADT, J.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.2 Pursuant to the terms of the plea bargain th e court sentenced defendant to 14 years in state prison. The preliminary hearing transcript s hows that defendant entered a marijuana dispensary, pointed a handgun at the security guard and told him to ‘“give me all your
shit.”’ A scuffle ensued and defendant was s hot in the waist. The entire incident was captured on the dispensary ’s surveillance video.
Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea which was denied. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal in which he checked the preprinted boxes indicating his appeal: (1) was “based on th e sentence or other matters occurring after the plea”; and (2) “challenge[d] the validity of the plea or admission.” Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause in which he claimed he was co erced by appointe d counsel to enter a plea, was denied. We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), raising no issues. On January 7, 2015, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to pe rsonally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date. Defendant’s guilty plea and failure to obt ain a certificate of pr obable cause limit the potential scope of defendant’s appeal to “g rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity” or “the deni al of a motion to suppress evidence under
Penal Code section 1538. 5.” (§ 1237.5, Cal. Rules of C ourt, rule 8.304(b).) We have
examined the entire record and have found that no arguable i ssues of any sort exist, let alone issues cognizable without a certificate of probable cause. We are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully co mplied with his responsibilities. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.