Is there any case law that supports a defendant's claim he acted under distress and misapprehension concerning the terms of his plea agreement?

Finally, defendant claims he was coerced into accepting a concurrent sentence, which in fact was a consecutive term. Defendant did not obtain a probable cause certificate. ( 1237.5.) As a result, he cannot raise issues going to the validity of his plea. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76; People v. Ward (1967) 66 Cal.2d 571, 574; People v. McEwan (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 173, 178.) In any event, the record belies defendant's claim he acted under distress and with misapprehension concerning the terms of his plea agreement. On the record in the trial court, defendant was asked: "Your attorney informs me that you wish to plead guilty in exchange for one-third the mid term doubled, which is 16 months in state prison, consecutive with the case in which you are . . . [] . . . [] . . . serving five years on. [] Is that your understanding of the agreement?" (Italics added.) Defendant responded, "That's my understanding." Defendant was subsequently asked whether he had any questions before entering his plea. Defendant said, "None at all." We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities.

Page 4

The judgment is affirmed.