Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD201508, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
OPINION
AARON, J.
Frank Maithas waived his constitutional rights and entered negotiated guilty pleas to grand theft auto (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1) (count 1)), taking or unlawfully driving a stolen vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) (count 2)), and receiving a stolen motor vehicle (§ 496d (count 3)) . He admitted having suffered a prior conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 666.5, subd. (a)) and having served three prior prison terms (§§ 667.5 subd. (b), 668). The court denied probation and sentenced Maithas to prison for five years: the three-year middle term for grand theft with a prior conviction for receiving a stolen vehicle, enhanced by two one-year terms for his prior prison terms. The court struck the third prior prison term enhancement and initially stayed sentence on the remaining convictions (§ 654). Later, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the court struck the convictions on counts 2 and 3. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576), the following occurred. On September 12, 2006, an employee of Avis car rental left the keys on the trunk of a parked car. A man the employee identified as Maithas took the car. Maithas was detained later by police. Because Maithis entered guilty pleas, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts in greater detail.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible, but not arguable, issue whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation.
We granted Maithas permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded. Maithas contends that his guilty plea to grand theft was invalid because the trial court struck the convictions on counts 2 and 3 after he was sentenced. Maithas also claims, without further explanation, that he was denied his constitutional rights. Absent a certificate of probable cause, a defendant cannot challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) In any case, only aggrieved parties have a right to appeal. (Winter v. Gnaizda (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 750, 754.) Maithas does not claim that he was aggrieved by the order striking, pursuant to a stipulation, two of the counts to which he entered guilty pleas.
Regarding the claim that Maithas was denied his constitutional rights, Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242-243, requires a showing in the record that the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to remain silent, to a jury trial, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. As the California Supreme Court said in In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132:
"This does not require the recitation of a formula by rote or the spelling out of every detail by the trial court. It does mean that the record must contain on its face direct evidence that the accused was aware, or made aware, of his right to confrontation, to a jury trial, and against self-incrimination, as well as the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea."
The advisement and waiver may be accomplished by the use of a form. (In re Ibarra (1983) 34 Cal.3d 277, 285.) The record in this case includes a guilty plea form that Maithas has signed. The form explicitly lists Maithas's constitutional rights and states that Maithas agrees to give up those rights. The record shows adequate compliance with the Boykin/Tahl requirements. Maithas does not specify any other constitutional right that he claims was violated in this case, and the record does not establish that any of his other constitutional rights were violated.
A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Maithas on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McINTYRE, Acting P. J., IRION, J.