Opinion
D057517
10-19-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUBEN FARIS QUINTANA, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. SCE295462)
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed.
This appeal is taken from a judgment of the superior court based on Ruben Faris Quintana's guilty plea to one count of assault resulting in great bodily injury and an order denying his request for a certificate of probable cause, and proceeds in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Finding no reasonably arguable appellate issue, we affirm the judgment and the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Quintana was arrested and charged with one count each of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury and battery resulting in the infliction of great bodily injury arising out of an incident in which he slapped and punched the victim in the face, causing several fractures and chipping of the victim's facial bones. Quintana later agreed to plead guilty to the assault count, and admit a related great bodily injury enhancement, and a strike prior, in exchange for a dismissal of the remaining count and allegations and an agreed upon seven-year sentence, subject to a 15 percent conduct credit limitation.
At the change of plea hearing, Quintana testified that he had not had any alcohol or drugs in the preceding 24 hours, and that, with the assistance of counsel, he had read and understood the terms of his plea. The court advised him that his plea waived various constitutional rights. It also advised him of the penal consequences of his plea, including that (1) the maximum sentence for the charges to which he was pleading was 11 years, (2) he could be required to pay a fine of up to $10,000, (3) if he committed any additional felony in the future, he would be subjected to an enhanced sentence for having a prison prior and two strike priors and would be required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence and (4) if he was not a United States citizen, his plea would result in his deportation.
With the agreement of his counsel, Quintana entered into the plea and stipulated that he had assaulted and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. The court accepted the plea and, on the prosecutor's motion, dismissed the remaining charges and allegations.
The following month, Quintana expressed his intent to withdraw his guilty plea and a new attorney was appointed to represent him on the motion. The motion was based on the contention that he entered the plea as the result of ignorance and mistake and the erroneous advice of his counsel regarding the impact of a pending change in the law regarding credits. At the hearing, the court denied the motion, finding that Quintana had not shown his plea was involuntary and that the evidence suggested he had merely had a change of heart.
The court thereafter proceeded to sentence Quintana to a seven-year term, consisting of the low term of two years, doubled as a second strike, plus a three-year consecutive term for the enhancement. It ordered Quintana to pay victim restitution, as well as a $1,400 restitution fine, a $1,400 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended unless parole was later revoked), a $30 court security fee, a $30 criminal conviction assessment and a $154 booking fee. It awarded him 197 days of custody credits (172 actual days plus 25 days of credits under Pen. Code, § 2933.1).
Quintana filed a notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause to appeal on the grounds that his plea was unlawful because: (1) he was not guilty of the charges against him; (2) his appointed attorney failed to properly represent him; (3) he was afraid to proceed to trial with his appointed attorney and his background; and (4) the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea. The superior court denied the request for the certificate of probable cause and this court issued an order limiting the issues on appeal "to sentencing questions or other matters occurring after the plea, except for issues involving prior strike convictions and the stipulated sentence."
Quintana's appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating that she has been unable to identify any argument for reversal and instead asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), the brief identifies the following issues as possible, but not arguable, on appeal:
1. Did the trial court err in denying Quintana's request for a certificate of probable cause?This court invited Quintana to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded.
2. Was Quintana's guilty plea involuntary?
3. Did the trial court fail to ensure the existence of a factual basis for Quintana's plea?
4. Was Quintana lawfully sentenced?
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Quintana has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment and order are affirmed.
________________
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
__________________
HUFFMAN, Acting P.J.
______________________
MCDONALD, J.