Opinion
A153036
08-30-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONOVAN EMMANUEL SAARI, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-17-90273)
Following defendant's plea to one count of second degree robbery with a firearm allegation and one count of reckless driving while evading a police officer, the trial court sentenced defendant to county jail and placed him on 36 months of formal probation. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Because defendant pled no contest, the following summary of facts is taken from the probation report.
On June 6, 2017, H.M. and her friend T.C. brought two pounds and 15 pounds of marijuana, respectively, to a hotel room in Willits with the intention of selling the marijuana to defendant and Rashard LaFrance. Instead of completing the purchase, however, defendant, armed with a revolver, told H.M. to lay on the ground. After she complied, defendant and LaFrance took H.M.'s and T.C.'s cell phones, and told them to go into the bathroom. H.M. and T.C. stayed in the bathroom for about 10 minutes, and upon leaving the bathroom H.M. noticed her two phones, $500 in cash, her purse, and her boyfriend's cremated remains were missing.
H.M. called the police providing them with a description of the suspects and their vehicle. A Ukiah police officer initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle driven by defendant, but when the officer ordered defendant to throw his keys out of the window, defendant took off in the vehicle recklessly driving to evade the police pursuit. During the pursuit on U.S. Highway 101, defendant's vehicle rear-ended another vehicle and then struck a center guard rail coming to a stop. Defendant and LaFrance fled on foot, but were ultimately detained shortly thereafter.
The Mendocino County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant with one count of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5, subd. (a)), including a personal use of a firearm allegation (id., § 12022.53, subd. (b)), and one count of reckless driving while evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)).
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, the district attorney amended the first degree robbery charge to second degree robbery, and defendant pled no contest to both the robbery as amended and reckless driving while evading a peace officer. The district attorney dismissed the firearm allegation, and agreed to a no state prison sentence. At the sentencing hearing, however, the trial court stated it would not sentence defendant to the agreed upon disposition of no state prison, and allowed defendant to withdraw his plea.
Less than a month later, the district attorney filed a first amended information charging defendant with one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5, subd. (c)), including a firearm allegation, and with one count of reckless driving while evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)).
One day earlier, the district attorney filed an information charging defendant with one count of first degree robbery, but changed the charge to second degree robbery in the first amended information. The remainder of the first amended information mirrors the information. --------
Defendant later agreed to another negotiated disposition whereby he pled no contest to both counts of the first amended information in exchange for the district attorney's promise to dismiss the firearm allegation, he would be placed on felony probation, and he would receive no more than a year in county jail as a condition of probation.
The trial court sentenced defendant to 364 days in county jail, deemed served, and imposed 36 months of formal probation.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
DISCUSSION
Defendant's counsel has filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case, but advising the court under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, no issues were found to argue on defendant's behalf. Defendant has been notified by his counsel he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief with this court. No supplemental brief has been received.
Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have examined the entire record ourselves to see if any arguable issue is present. We have found none.
Defendant was ably represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed upon disposition of no state prison and felony probation.
We therefore agree with defendant's counsel that no issues are present undermining defendant's plea of no contest or the sentence.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Margulies, J. We concur: /s/_________
Humes, P.J. /s/_________
Dondero, J.