Opinion
A153854
08-08-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHILICO DAVID HART, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-707239-1)
Chilico David Hart appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after he entered a no contest plea to felony arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)). His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the appellate record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In August 2017, Hart was charged in a felony complaint with arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)). The complaint also alleged that Hart had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
The probation department's presentence report set forth the underlying events. At approximately 2:14 a.m. on August 2, 2017, police and fire departments responded to a vehicle fire at a freight yard in Petaluma. There they found a "Kenworth box truck," valued at approximately $50,000, on fire. Surveillance footage showed a subject walking away minutes before smoke began billowing from the truck.
Police contacted Hart in the area at approximately 2:39 a.m., wearing clothes that matched those worn by the suspect in the surveillance video. In a later interview with police, Hart denied being on the property; but when shown a photograph of the suspect, Hart responded, "Looks like me." He was arrested.
In September 2017, Hart entered a no-contest plea to the arson charge and admitted one prison prior, pursuant to a written Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver and Plea form signed by Hart, his attorney, the prosecutor, and the court. The plea form indicated a maximum term of four years in state prison. On the form, Hart agreed that he understood and waived specified constitutional rights and that, as a consequence of his plea, he would have to register pursuant to section 457.1 and provide a blood test and saliva sample. In open court, while represented by counsel, Hart acknowledged that he read the plea form in its entirety and discussed his trial rights with his attorney, believed he understood those rights, and was prepared to waive them. He acknowledged on the record that he was entering his plea freely and voluntarily. The court found that Hart's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, accepted the plea, and found Hart guilty as charged. The other two alleged prison priors were dismissed.
The probation department interviewed Hart in preparing its presentence report. Although Hart did not remember being at the property, he took responsibility for the fire. He expressed remorse, acknowledged his substance abuse and mental health issues, and claimed he was willing to get help and would do well on probation. In light of his extensive criminal history, however, the probation department recommended that probation be denied and that Hart be committed to prison for the aggregate term of four years.
While represented by counsel at the sentencing hearing on December 28, 2017, Hart asked the court to give him "one shot" and expressed his willingness to waive "any and all credits I've earned." He admitted to having a serious problem with alcohol, claimed that his offense was due to the fact he was "wasted," and believed it was in the best interest of society for him to get help.
The court denied probation in light of Hart's nine prior felonies and poor performance on formal probation. Consistent with the plea agreement, the court sentenced Hart to state prison for four years, comprised of the three-year upper term for arson (§ 451, subd. (d)) and a consecutive one-year enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court chose the upper term for the arson offense based on Hart's record of nine felonies, the dangerousness of his activity, and the fact that he failed many of his grants of formal probation. The court awarded him 148 days credit for time served and 148 days of conduct credit. It imposed a $300 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, a $300 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45 (suspended unless parole is revoked), a court security fee of $40, a criminal conviction fee of $30, and restitution in an amount to be determined, and ordered Hart to provide blood and saliva samples (§ 296) and to register pursuant to section 457.1.
Hart filed a notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause with the bare statement that "[d]efendant asserts all grounds for contesting the legality of the plea and all grounds for contesting the length of the sentence." Despite the absence of any facts, argument, or legal authority in support of the certificate request, the trial court granted it.
II. DISCUSSION
Hart's appellate attorney has represented in a declaration accompanying the opening brief that she wrote to Hart and advised him that a Wende brief would be filed and that within 30 days he could personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wanted to bring to this court's attention. The 30-day period has passed, and we have not received any supplemental brief from Hart.
We find no arguable issues on appeal. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
SIMONS, J.