Filed 6/1/16 P. v. Throop CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARTIN THROOP,

Defendant and Appellant. A147265

(Lake County

Super. Ct. No. CR940436)

In this case we review a judgment following a no contest plea. Appellant ’s

counsel has advised this c ourt the appeal is proceeding pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436. Counsel has advised appellant of his d ecision and told appellant

he can file a supplemental brief to present any claims appellant wishes to argue. He must

do so within 30 days of counsel’s notification. To date we have not received a ny

submission from appellant. We have reviewed the record independently and find no

basis for disturbing the judgment in the case.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On October 9, 2015, the District Attorney of Lake County filed a complaint

alleging appellant committed a felony violation of possession of methamphetamine for

sale, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378, and a misdemeanor count of

simple possession of methamphetamine, a violation of Health and Safety Code section

11377, subd ivision (a).2

On October 26, 2015, appellant entered a plea of no contest to the felony

possession for sale charge in the complaint. He was advised the remainder of the

complaint would be dismissed, he would receive a probation sentence of three years, and

serve no more th an 90 days in the county jail. The trial court found a ppellant’s no contest

plea was the result of a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights under

Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, and the appellant understood the consequences

of his plea. The parties also stipulated to the factual b asis of the plea with the following

recitation: “On October 7, 2015, in Lake County, the defendant was contacted and had

on his person 15.4 grams of methamphetamine. That is a usable amount. And in the

training and experience of

. . . Officer Joseph Mey ers, that the

— that amount was

po ssessed for purposes of sale.” The no contest plea of appellant also resulted in the

resolution of two other cases.

Appellant was sentenced on November 16, 2015 . The court placed him on three

years ’ probation, with a condition he serve 90 days in the county jail

, with credit for 81

days. Additional fines and assessments compatible with specific provisions of the Health

and Safety Code and the Penal Code were also i mposed. Appellant submitted a requ est

for a certificate of probable cause

, claiming he entered his plea because he was under

“emotional pressure and stress” due to the recent death of his mother. This request was

denied by the trial court.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on Decemb er 1, 2015.

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the record of the trial court proceedings. Appellant’s request

for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court. This denial by the trial

court significantly impacts any review of the plea proces s itself. ( People v. Mendez

(1999) 19 Cal.4 th 1084, 1094

– 10 95; People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4 th 658, 663. ) W e

have reviewed this record on the merits and find no irregularities in the trial court. We

have also reviewed the sentencing process and find n o basis for upsetting the sentence3

imposed in this case. Appellant got what he bargained for in this matter. At all times,

appellant appears to have been properly represented by counsel.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment in this case.4 _________________________ DONDERO, J.

We concur:

_________________________ MARGULIES, Acting P. J.

_________________________ BANKE, J.

A147265