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Filed 2/21/14 P. v. Gohs CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

, d efendant pled no contest in case No. 62120875 to one

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

contest ple a would also constitut e an admission of violation of probation in case Nos.2

62 99846C (Pen. Code, § 273 a , subd. (a)

-- child cruelty ) and 62 96748A (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 62 99846C and consecutive terms of

eight months in case Nos. 62 96748A and 62120875 , and that his probation in thr ee other

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

At the time of the plea, t he trial court i nform ed defen d ant that he was charged with

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

b oth side s of an advisement for m , 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, defense s, and the possible consequences of his

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

affirm ed 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 ag reement. 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 c ause (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.) Defe ndant 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. We3

have reviewed the record in its ent irety 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 f n. 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].)