Opinion
E066529
02-06-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR ALFONZO ALANIZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Elizabeth K. Horowitz, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIF1501599) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed. Elizabeth K. Horowitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant Victor Alfonzo Alaniz pled guilty to possessing a stabbing weapon while incarcerated (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a) (count 1)) and manufacturing a stabbing weapon while incarcerated (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (b) (count 2)). Defendant also admitted that he had sustained a prior strike conviction for robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). In return, defendant was sentenced to a total term of four years in state prison with 656 days' credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. Appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts and raising the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to relieve appointed counsel. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.) Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 11, 2015, defendant manufactured and possessed a shank made out of several pieces of prison material while incarcerated.
On February 4, 2016, an information was filed charging defendant with possessing and manufacturing a stabbing weapon while incarcerated in violation of Penal Code section 4502, subdivisions (a) (count 1) and (b) (count 2), respectively. The information further alleged that defendant had sustained a prior strike conviction for a robbery in 2013 (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).
On June 13, 2016, defendant moved to relieve his court-appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. Following a hearing on that same date, the trial court denied defendant's request.
On July 20, 2016, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to counts 1 and 2 and admitted the prior strike conviction in exchange for a stipulated term of four years in state prison (the low term of two years on count 1 doubled to four years due to the prior strike conviction). After directly examining defendant, the trial court found that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights and that defendant understood his charges and the consequences of the plea and admission. The trial court also found that there was a factual basis for defendant's plea. Immediately thereafter, defendant was sentenced to the total term of four years on count 1 in accordance with his plea agreement. Sentence on count 2 was imposed but stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Defendant was awarded 656 days of credit for time served, consisting of 328 days of actual time plus 328 days of conduct time.
On July 27, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal and on August 5, 2016, an amended notice of appeal, challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issue, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
Based on our independent review, we find no viable claim of error. We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: MILLER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.