People v. Moreno CA2/4

DISCUSSION

After review of the record, Moreno’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to the holding of Wende. We advised Moreno that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider, and in that time period Moreno filed a supplemental brief, in which he contends that he would not have entered a plea agreement if his counsel had advised him that he could make a motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) to strike his previous strike offenses, which dated from 1982 and 1985. A certificate of probable cause is required for an appeal challenging the validity of a plea. (People v. Brown (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 356, 359.) Because Moreno failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, he is precluded from challenging the validity of his plea. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76-

3 78.) Therefore, we may not consider Moreno’s argument that he would not have entered the plea agreement had he known about the option to file a Romero motion. Because Moreno neither challenged the inventory search conducted in…