Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura Palmer Hammes, Judge. Super. Ct. No. SCD 189013
NARES, J.
Earl Bowman entered a negotiated guilty plea to conspiracy to commit a residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 459 ) and admitted having a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b) - (i)). The trial court sentenced Bowman to nine years in prison. Bowman's request for a certificate of probable cause was granted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTS
In late 2004 a confidential informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) met with Eugene Clark about purchasing ephedrine; Clark mentioned that he had "a crew of people that he's associated with who are willing to put in work." ATF agent Floyd Mohler interpreted "work" to mean moving narcotics in furtherance of a criminal enterprise. In December AFT undercover agent Harry Penate met with Clark in a restaurant and discussed a possible criminal job, which was actually a sting operation. Penate told Clark that he wanted an out-of-town crew to conduct a home invasion robbery of a stash house. Clark passed on contact information for Bowman; during two telephone calls, Penate discussed the plan with Bowman in general terms.
On January 14, 2005, Penate met with Bowman and codefendants Willie Bowman and Mark Ferrell at a restaurant to discuss specifics of the plan. It was later arranged that Earl Bowman would drive the getaway van.
On February 9 Penate went to a hotel room and met with the crew again for a final discussion of the plan. Penate, driving separately from the defendants, led them to what they believed was the stash house, but was in fact a pre-arranged spot where police arrested them.
On January 5, 2006, Earl Bowman pled guilty to the conspiracy to commit burglary count and admitted the prior convictions under section 667, subdivisions (a) and (b) through (i). In exchange for the plea, the court dismissed the remainder of the charges, which included two other conspiracy charges (robbery & possession of cocaine for sale) and two firearm allegations. The plea agreement provided for a stipulated sentence of nine years and was part of a package deal in which the prosecution required codefendants Willie Bowman and Mark Ferrell to accept the same deal.
On May 1 the court sentenced Earl Bowman to nine years in prison: double the lower term of two years for the conspiracy count under the Three Strikes Law plus five consecutive years for the prior serious felony conviction. The court also imposed a $1,200 restitution fine. The court delayed awarding presentence credits because the probation department had miscalculated the credits.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court erred by not sufficiently inquiring of Earl Bowman to determine if his plea was voluntary because it was part of a package deal contingent on two of his codefendants accepting the plea bargain as well; (2) whether the court abused its discretion by denying Earl Bowman's request for a continuance at the sentencing hearing; (3) whether conspiracy to commit residential burglary of a fictitious house is a qualifying conviction for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)) to apply; (4) whether there was a sufficient basis for the guilty plea; (5) whether it was error not to award presentence credits at the sentencing hearing; (6) whether the restitution fine of $1,200 was excessive; and (7) whether Earl Bowman was properly advised about the rights being waived when he admitted a prior felony.
We granted Earl Bowman permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Earl Bowman on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., McDONALD, J.