Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 08F07916
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
Defendant Pedro Cruz Alejo pled no contest to robbery and personal use of a gun. He was sentenced to 12 years in state prison as stipulated. His appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.
According to the recited factual basis, the defendant used a gun to obtain $30 from one victim and retain the cell phone of the other that he had obtained earlier. The victims’ property was found on the defendant when police located him a short time afterward; the gun was in the car that he had driven. A complaint charged him with two robberies and two enhancements for personal use of a gun.
At a hearing a week before trial, the defendant expressed his desire to replace appointed counsel. In camera, he did not express any reasons that would render his subsequent plea either unintelligent or involuntary. The court denied the motion.
People v. Lovings (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1311-1312; People v. Lobaugh (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 780, 786 (denial of motion to substitute counsel cognizable after guilty plea only under those circumstances).
At the outset of trial, defendant agreed to a stipulated disposition in which he would receive the lower term of two years on one count with a 10-year enhancement for the use of a gun, in exchange for dismissal of the other count. (A codefendant not party to this appeal apparently had already entered a plea.) After explaining the consequences of his plea and obtaining a waiver of his constitutional rights, the court accepted the defendant’s plea of no contest. At sentencing, it imposed the stipulated disposition, agreeing with the probation report that the lower term was appropriate in light of the defendant’s lack of a prior criminal record. It granted custody credits of 181 days, with 27 days of conduct credit (Pen. Code, § 2933.1). It imposed restitution of $30 to the victim, a restitution fine (with an equivalent suspended parole revocation fine), and fees for court security, crime prevention, booking, and inmate classification.
Counsel filed a notice of appeal without an application for a certificate of probable cause. The defendant then filed a notice of appeal in propria persona that included an unverified handwritten application for a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court granted.
In People v. Grey (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1336, 1338-1339, disapproved on another point in In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116, 130, footnote 8, we held that the absence of verification rendered a defendant’s appeal inoperative (at a time when a certificate of probable cause was not part of the procedure).
We have appointed counsel to represent the defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised the defendant 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 not received any communication from the defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we do not find any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to the defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., SIMS, J.