People v. Alford CA1/1

Filed 6/28/23 P. v. Alford CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A167027
v. (Mendocino County
DELBERT WARREN ALFORD, Super. Ct. No.
22CR02906)
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Delbert Warren Alford appeals from a judgment and
sentence entered on his no contest plea to one count of failure to register as a
convicted sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.015, subd. (a).) The court
thereafter imposed the negotiated disposition, sentencing him to a 16-month
sentence. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for
an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any
issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or
modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a
supplemental brief but has not done so. Upon independent review of the
record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm.
Penal Code section 1237.5 generally precludes an appeal from a
judgment of conviction after a plea of no contest or guilty unless the
defendant has applied for, and the trial court has granted, a certificate of
1
probable cause. There are two exceptions: (1) a challenge to a search and
seizure ruling, as to which an appeal is proper under Penal Code section
1538.5, subdivision (m); and (2) post-plea sentencing issues. (People v.
Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; see People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th
773, 780.) Defendant requested, but was denied a certificate of probable
cause. He did not file a suppression motion, and the court made no search
and seizure ruling.
Therefore, our review is of the post-plea record. It shows defendant
was ably represented by counsel. Defendant completed and executed a
written felony plea form. The court determined defendant’s no contest plea
was knowingly and intelligently made. There was no abuse of discretion in
sentencing, and the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the
negotiated disposition. (See People v. Tang (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 669, 679
[“ ‘ “severity of the sentence and the placing of defendant on probation rest in
the sound discretion of the trial court” ’ ”].) The court properly ordered
custody credits and imposed fines and fees.
After a review of the record, we find no arguable issues and affirm the
judgment.
2
_________________________
Banke, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Humes, P.J.
_________________________
Bowen, J.*
*Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
A167027, People v. Alford
3