Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF140463, Craig Riemer, Judge.
Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI, J.
I
INTRODUCTION
On December 13, 2007, defendant and appellant Jonathan Baltazar Pena was charged in a felony complaint with contact of a minor with the intent to commit a sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3, subd. (a), count 1), and willful and unlawful attempt to commit a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 288, subd. (a), counts 2, 3, and 4).
On January 3, 2008, defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement wherein he pleaded guilty to count 2, with the understanding that he would receive the midterm of three years in state prison. In exchange, the remaining counts were to be dismissed.
Defendant was sentenced to the agreed upon term of three years and the court dismissed the remaining counts. A restitution fine of $600, a booking fee of $110, and a court security fee of $20 were imposed.
On February 29, 2008, a notice of appeal was filed.
II
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant pleaded guilty to count 2, as charged in the felony complaint. Count 2 specified that defendant committed a violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 288, subdivision (a), in that on or about December 7, 2007, defendant attempted to willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly commit a lewd and lascivious act upon and with the body and certain parts and members thereof of Jane Doe, a child under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires of defendant and Jane Doe.
III
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief and he has done so. In his supplemental three-page letter brief filed June 3, 2008, defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel “omitt[ed] evidence, fail[ed] to explain [defendant’s] constitutional rights, and fail[ed] to proceed with court hearings[.]”
In his second supplemental opening brief filed June 10, 2008, defendant contends that his guilty plea should be withdrawn because he was “coerced into taking a plea agreement.” Defendant argues that his trial counsel “did not inform [defendant] of [his] right to an impartial trial by jury [or] . . . of [his] constitutional right to cross-examine any, and all, witnesses against [him].”
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P. J., HOLLENHORST, J.