Opinion
F056336.
7-10-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAUL AGUILAR, Defendant and Appellant.
William A. Malloy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Hill, J.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On May 20, 2008, appellant, Saul Aguilar, was charged in a criminal complaint with felony assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2), count one) and felony discharge of a firearm with gross negligence (§ 246.3, subd. (b), count two). The complaint also alleged that appellant personally used a gun. (§ 12022.5, subds. (a) & (d) & § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).)
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On June 2, 2008, appellant entered into a plea agreement in which he would admit count one and the gun use enhancement. Count two would be dismissed and the court stated its indicated sentence would be five years. The court advised the appellant of the consequences of his plea as well as his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl. Appellant waived his rights and the parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Appellant pled no contest to count one and admitted the enhancement.
Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.
The court asked appellant if he was taking any medication, drugs or alcohol that would affect his ability to understand what he was doing. Appellant replied that he was taking medication but it did not affect anything. Appellant also said he had no difficulty communicating with his attorney and his attorney advised him of his potential defenses.
On June 25, 2008, the court appointed a medical examiner, pursuant to section 1368, to determine whether appellant was competent. Dr. Luis Velosa examined appellant on September 5, 2008. At a young age, appellant began drinking. As a teenager, he took and abused cocaine. He also started abusing methamphetamine. Appellant reported to Dr. Velosa that he was told he was both an addict and had a psychiatric problem. Appellant reported he was seeing and hearing things. At the same time he was manic. Appellant was prescribed Depakote and Seroquel. Appellant said the medications helped him a lot. Appellant no longer hears voices or sees things.
Dr. Velosa diagnosed appellant with bipolar disorder and drug dependence on methamphetamine. Dr. Velosa found appellant was properly medicated and was not exhibiting any evidence of psychosis or other bizarre or disorganized behaviors. Dr. Velosa further found appellant was able to understand the nature and purpose of the criminal proceedings against him and was capable of cooperating in a rational manner with defense counsel. Dr. Velosa concluded appellant was competent to stand trial. On September 17, 2008, the parties submitted the issue of appellants competency to the court based on Dr. Velosas report. The court found appellant competent to stand trial.
On September 26, 2008, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. Appellant asserted in a declaration that he suffers from bipolar disorder, which causes him to experience auditory and visual hallucinations. Appellant also asserted that as a consequence of his bipolar disorder, he did not fully understand the consequences of changing his plea.
On October 14, 2008, appellant submitted his motion to the court on his brief. The court noted it had reviewed the transcript of appellants change of plea hearing and found appellant was fully advised of his constitutional rights and consequences of his plea. The court read the passage from the reporters transcript at the change of plea hearing in which appellant said he was taking medication, but it did not affect anything. Appellant further acknowledged that he had no difficulty communicating with his attorney, and his attorney advised him of possible defenses to the allegations. The court found appellant understood the consequences of his plea, fully understood the proceedings, and denied appellants motion to withdraw his plea. The court sentenced appellant to prison for two years on count one plus a consecutive term of three years for the enhancement for a total term of five years.
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on February 27, 2009, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we conclude there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.