Opinion
A156294
06-05-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HUMBERTO SALAS CALDERA, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CRF17-9588)
Appellant Humberto Salas Caldera, Jr. (Appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Safety Code, § 11378). Appellant's counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
BACKGROUND
In March 2018, an information was filed charging Appellant with two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378), two counts of transportation of methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)), and one count of resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The information also alleged Appellant was out on bail at the time of the incident resulting in one of the possession for sale counts and one of the transportation counts (Pen. Code, § 12022.1).
The charges arose from November 2017 and February 2018 incidents during which police officers found Appellant in possession of methamphetamine.
In April 2018, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of possession for sale and admitted the on bail allegation as to one of the counts. The plea agreement provided that the remaining charges would be dismissed and Appellant would be granted probation. Appellant was released pending sentencing with a Cruz waiver.
People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247. --------
In May 2018, the trial court issued a warrant for failure to appear.
In September 2018, the trial court denied probation and sentenced appellant to consecutive terms of three years for the first possession offense, eight months for the second possession offense, and two years for the enhancement, for a total of five years and eight months. Pursuant to Penal Code, section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B), the court ordered Appellant to serve four years and six months in local custody and the remaining one year and two months on mandatory supervision. The court also imposed a $400 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4); a $400 stayed restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45); two $40 court operations fees (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); a $61.87 city booking fee; and two $30 criminal conviction assessments (Govt. Code, § 70373). Subsequently, on the ground of Appellant's inability to pay, the court reduced and suspended the restitution fine and suspended the court operations fees and the conviction assessments.
Appellant requested a certificate of probable cause for appeal, but it was denied by the trial court.
DISCUSSION
Appellant's guilty plea restricts the scope of the appeal before us. Because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, his appeal is limited to "postplea claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea." (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.)
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. At the time of the plea, the trial court warned Appellant that if he failed to appear the court could impose a sentence of up to five years and eight months. Due the Cruz waiver and Appellant's failure to appear, the trial court was not bound by the plea agreement in sentencing. (People v. Cruz, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1254, fn. 5; People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1222-1223.) The sentence imposed by the court was proper, as were the fines and assessments.
Appellate counsel advised Appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court's attention any issue he believes deserves review. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
SIMONS, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
BURNS, J.