Opinion
F040922.
10-21-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SALVADOR ROMERO RUELAS, Defendant and Appellant.
Linda Buchser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Carlos A. Martinez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT
Appellant Salvador Romero Ruelas, and three codefendants, were charged in a criminal information with the murder of Benjamin Gutierrez. Ruelas was also charged with the special circumstance of lying in wait (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), being armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and being an accessory after the fact (Pen. Code, § 32). On March 19, 2002, Ruelas entered into a plea agreement wherein he admitted being an accessory after the fact. Ruelas agreed to testify truthfully in the trial against the codefendants, that the judge who tried the codefendants would sentence him, and that there would be no lid on his sentence. If Ruelas failed to testify truthfully, the prosecutor could refile the original allegations. Ruelas proceeded to testify at trial.
At the time the plea was entered, the parties agreed the truthfulness of Ruelass testimony would be determined according to whether his testimony was consistent with the statements he had made to investigating officers. During the trial of the codefendants and immediately prior to Ruelass testimony, Judge Austin, citing People v. Badgett (1995) 10 Cal.4th 330, 358 and People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 438, 452-456, found the original plea agreement was coercive. The parties agreed to amend the plea agreement to only require Ruelas to testify fully and truthfully.
Though the trial court found that Ruelas had perjured himself at trial, the prosecutor did not seek to pursue the original allegations. The court sentenced Ruelas to prison for three years, the upper term. The court imposed a $500 fine, a $600 restitution fine, and granted Ruelas applicable custody credits.
Ruelass appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court independently to review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Ruelas was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter of March 19, 2003, we invited Ruelas to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no other reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
The judgment is affirmed.