Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC808346
Premo, J.
Defendant Antoinette Maria Contreras pleaded no contest to one count of hit and run driving resulting in injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subds. (a), (b)(1)) (a felony), and guilty to one count of being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)) (a misdemeanor), with the understanding that she would be granted probation and serve no more than 90 days in county jail. The trial court sentenced defendant accordingly, suspending imposition of sentence, placing defendant on probation for three years, and requiring her to serve 90 days in county jail, no more and no less.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
I. Background
There was no preliminary hearing and referral to probation was waived so that the facts of the crimes do not appear in the record. We may infer from notations on a memorandum from the probation department that on April 16, 2008, defendant was involved in a traffic accident in which the victim, motorcyclist Mark Reny, was struck. The victim sustained two fractures to his pelvis and several wrist fractures and required hospitalization and physical therapy.
II. Discussion
The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause, which is required by Penal Code section 1237.5 when a defendant seeks to appeal from a judgment entered following a guilty or no contest plea. Accordingly, the appeal is inoperative insofar as it might challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5, subd. (a).) The certificate is not required when the notice of appeal states, as it does here, that it is based upon grounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) Accordingly, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having done so, we note that the trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with her plea bargain, required that she complete a substance abuse program, ordered that she be referred to the Department of Revenue for a determination of her ability to pay fines and fees, and imposed statutorily required fines and fees, including $23,368.84 to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board and a “[g]eneral order of restitution” in favor of the victim.
We conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.