P. v.Widby CA2/3

DISCUSSION

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defense counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278 [120 S.Ct. 746]; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.) Widby’s request for a certificate of probable cause listed the following grounds for attacking the legality of his no contest plea: ineffective assistance of counsel; the prosecution’s failure to turn over Brady material3; and, various acts of prosecutorial misconduct. However, in light of the very generous plea agreement Widby accepted, and his subsequent failure to file a supplemental brief specifying what issues he wanted to raise on appeal, we remain convinced that no arguable appellate issue exists.

3 Under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [10 L.Ed.2d 215], the prosecution has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

KITCHING, J.

JONES, J.

 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California…