Opinion
E059082
12-13-2013
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND CORDERO OROSCO, Defendant and Appellant.
Stephanie Adraktas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
(Super.Ct.No. FVA1300441)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ronald M. Christianson, Judge. Affirmed.
Stephanie Adraktas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Raymond Cordero Orosco appeals from a guilty plea to one count of petty theft with prior theft-related convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 484, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a)). We find no error and will affirm the judgment.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background is taken from the probation report.
On November 24, 2012, loss prevention officers apprehended defendant after he stole $3.63 worth of food.
On March 13, 2013, a one-count felony complaint was filed charging defendant with petty theft with three or four prior theft-related convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 484, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a)).
The felony complaint specifically states, "[o]n or about November 24, 2012, . . . the crime of PETTY THEFT WITH THREE PRIORS . . . was committed" by defendant. However, in listing the previously convicted priors, the complaint lists four prior theft-related convictions.
--------
On May 30, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to committing petty theft with three or four prior theft-related convictions. After directly examining defendant, the trial court found that defendant understood the nature and consequences of the plea and the offenses; that the plea was entered into freely and voluntarily; and that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights.
On June 27, 2013, defendant was sentenced to a "split" low term of 16 months pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B)(i), as follows: eight months to be served in county jail with credit of 82 days for time served, and the remaining eight months to be spent on mandatory supervision on various terms and conditions.
On July 2, 2013, defendant filed a notice of appeal "based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea."
II
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court undertake an independent review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we independently reviewed the record for potential error. We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur: HOLLENHORST
J.
CODRINGTON
J.