1 Filed 3/27/13 P. v. Wilbon CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ARTHUR LEE WILBON III, Defendant and Appellant. E056062 (Super.Ct.No . FBA800434) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Sa n Bernardino County. Douglas M. Elwell, Judge. Affirmed. Joanna Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. On May 28, 2009, defenda nt and appellant Arthur Lee Wilbon III was charged with assault on a child causi ng death (Pen. Code, § 273ab, count 1), and murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 2). He pled not guilty to the charges. The matter was continued numerous times. On March 18, 2011, the trial court signed an order2 authorizing the defense to have a psychologi cal evaluation done pu rsuant to Evidence
Code section 1017. 1 On March 14, 2012, defendant en tered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to count 2. The court dismissed the remain ing count and sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in state prison, in accordance with the plea agreement. The court awarded defendant 1181 days of presentence conduct credit pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.2, but later co rrected the credits to awar d 1359 days of credit. Defendant filed a notice of appeal in pro. per. challenging the validity of the plea. Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause, stating th at he was denied effective assistance of counsel, in that his counsel “induced” the plea by his faulty advice regarding elements of a possible defense. Defendant further alleged that his counsel failed to seek an insanity defense and failed to consult with him abou t the plea agreement. He also claimed he was under a heavy dose of medication when he signed the agreement. The trial court granted the certificat e of probable cause. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the pr eliminary hearing transcript. On the morning of June 30, 2008, Se rgeant Andrew Espinoza re sponded to a report of an unresponsive baby. The baby was the one-y ear-old child of Donshaya Anderson. Anderson had left the baby in defendant’s care that morning. Initially, defendant told the police that he had put the baby down to sleep while he watched television. When he went to check on the baby, sh e was not breathing, so he “tried to blow into the baby’s mouth”

1 The record on appeal does not in dicate the results of such evaluation.3 and then ran to the neighbor’s apartment to call 911. Defendant subsequently changed his story and said that he had left the ba by alone in the apartment while he went downstairs. He left the baby on the kitc hen table, and she fell off the table and was crying on the floor when he returned. The baby was take n to the hospital. At the hospital, defendant told Sergeant Espinoza that he was watching the baby, he ran downstairs to give something to Anderson, and when he returned he found the baby on the floor crawling. She was fine, and he pick ed her up, fed her, and put her to bed. He later noticed that the baby was not responding, so he tried to revive her by breathing into her mouth. When the baby arrived at the hospital, she was brain dead. An autopsy was performed by Dr. Changsri, who observed bruisi ng to the front, sides, and back of the baby’s head, and hemorrhaging to the lower gum line and the inside of the baby’s lip. Dr. Changsri found severe hemorrhaging to the brain and the optic nerve. She also found retinal hemorrhaging. Dr. Cha ngsri opined that the cause of death was an inflicted head injury. Another doctor, Dr. Sheridan, reviewed photographs from the autopsy and agreed with Dr. Changsri on the cause of death. D r. Sheridan further opine d that a fall from the table, as claimed by defendant, wo uld not cause a fatal injury.
ANALYSIS Defendant appealed and, upon his re quest, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has file d a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [8 7 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case and the following potential arguable issue:4 Was defendant deprived of effective assistance of counsel when he entered into the plea agreement? Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record. We offered defendant an op portunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an indepe ndent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.

We concur:

RICHLI J.

CODRINGTON J.