1

Filed 2/21/14 P. v. Gohs CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ALBERT GOHS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C073895

(Super. Ct. No. 62120875)

Appointed counsel for defendant Christopher Albert Gohs has asked this court to 

review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled no contest in case No. 62120875 to one 

count of preparing false documentary evidence (Pen. Code, § 134) and agreed that the no 

contest plea would also constitute an admission of violation of probation in case Nos. 
2

6299846C (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a) -- child cruelty) and 6296748A (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11173, subd. (a) -- obtaining/attempting to obtain controlled substance by 

documentary deceit). It was further agreed that his aggregate term would be three years 

four months in custody, consisting of two years in 6299846C and consecutive terms of 

eight months in case Nos. 6296748A and 62120875, and that his probation in three other 

misdemeanor cases and one felony case would be terminated as unsuccessful.

At the time of the plea, the trial court informed defendant that he was charged with 

preparing false documentary evidence on March 7, 2013, and asked whether he had read 

both sides of an advisement form, if he had any questions regarding his rights, and if he 

had signed the form. Defendant responded “yes” to each query and counsel joined. The 

advisement of rights form stated defendant had enough time to speak with his attorney 

about the case, he had told his attorney everything he knew about the case, and his 

attorney had explained to him his rights, defenses, and the possible consequences of his 

plea. Counsel for defendant signed a part of the advisement of rights form which 

affirmed the truth of defendant’s representations regarding his consultation with counsel.

Immediately after the entry of the plea and admissions, defendant was sentenced 

in accordance with the agreement. For all three cases, the court awarded a total 

presentence custody credit of 237 days (119 actual, 118 conduct). The court also 

imposed fines and fees as set forth in the abstract of judgment.

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (CPC).

DISCUSSION

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that 

this court review the record and determine whether it reflects any arguable issues on 

appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to 

file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More 

than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. We 
3

have reviewed the record in its entirety and find no error that might result in a disposition

more favorable to defendant.1

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 DUARTE , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 NICHOLSON , J.

 

1 We see no factual basis in the record, stipulated or otherwise. However, because 

defendant did not obtain a CPC, he cannot challenge the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting a factual basis for his plea, and we are prohibited from reviewing any issue 

related to the sufficiency of the trial court’s inquiry into the factual basis for defendant’s 

plea. (See People v. Thurman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36, 44 fn. 6 [a contention that the 

court failed to make a sufficient inquiry into the factual basis for the plea challenges the 

legality of the plea]; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1099 [appellate court 

must decline to review an issue that requires a CPC in the absence of a CPC].)