DISCUSSION

We have independently reviewed the entire record according to our obligations under Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, but found no arguable issues on appeal. (1) Counsel suggests we consider whether Galloway was properly advised of his constitutional rights prior to the guilty plea. This we cannot do, because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and, in any event his guilty plea form is a valid substitute. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76, 83 (Panizzon); § 1237.5.) (2) Counsel suggests we consider whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea. Once more we cannot consider this claim because Galloway did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Panizzon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 76.) Yet even if we could consider this claim, as noted above, there was a factual basis for the guilty plea. (3) Counsel suggests we consider whether Galloway was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. We have and he got exactly what he bargained for. (4) Counsel suggests we consider whether the court awarded the correct amount of presentence credit. We have and it did. This too was a term of the negotiated disposition. Paragraph 25 of the guilty plea form provided, in part: “Proposed disposition: I voluntarily agree and understand the court will: (initial all that apply) [¶] (a) Sentence me to state prison for a period of 5 years and 0 months, credit for time served of 0 days actual custody and 0 days of good time/work time for a total credit of 0 days.” While there was a discussion of the credits issue at the time of sentencing, defendant ultimately confirmed he had agreed to zero credit for time served. Thereafter the court correctly awarded him two days of actual credit pursuant to section 4019, including a full day for the day of his commitment to state prison. (People v. Smith (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 523, 526.) Under these circumstances, “We find no error, because the court followed the clear and explicit language of defendant’s plea bargain.” (People v. Puente (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1149.)

3 (5) Galloway also requests us to consider whether the court awarded the correct amount of presentence credit. He says he entered a different guilty plea on September 15, 2014 and, as a result, he is entitled to credits from that date to May 22, 2015. He also asks us to “take a look at the September 15, 2014 transcripts of the plea deal” and “see if there’s any arguable issues that can be found . . . .” The record does not reflect any guilty plea on September 15, 2014. The minute order shows there was a pretrial hearing set for that date, which was continued to the next day. There is no reporter’s transcript for September 15, 2014, but the reporter’s transcript of the proceedings on the next day shows the parties advised the court that the plea negotiations had “broken down.” Regardless, any error arising out of the events on September 15, 2014, would necessarily precede the May 21, 2015 plea and sentence which Galloway has appealed from. Again we cannot consider these matters because Galloway did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Panizzon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 74-75.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

THOMPSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

RYLAARSDAM, J.

4