Opinion
E073764
03-10-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER J. ALDAPE, Defendant and Appellant.
Leslie Ann Rose, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIF1902791) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Leslie Ann Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Christopher J. Aldape was charged by felony complaint with knowingly possessing marijuana in the California Rehabilitation Center. (Pen. Code, § 4573.8, count 1.) The complaint also alleged that he had two prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(a), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(a).) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1. The court found a factual basis for the plea and dismissed the remaining allegations, on motion of the People. The court sentenced him to the agreed-upon term of 16 months in state prison, with credit for time served.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. --------
Defendant filed a notice of appeal, based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 10, 2019, defendant was charged by felony complaint with knowingly possessing marijuana in the California Rehabilitation Center. (§ 4573.8, count 1.) The complaint also alleged that he had two prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(a), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(a).) Defendant filed a demurrer, arguing that the facts stated in the complaint did not constitute a public offense, pursuant to People v. Raybon (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 111, review granted August 21, 2019, S256978. The People opposed the demurrer, arguing that Proposition 64's legalization of cannabis use did not extend to use in prison. (People v. Perry (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 885, 891-892.)
Defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea agreement. Before accepting the plea, the court asked him if he personally initialed and signed the plea form, and he confirmed that he did. The court asked if he discussed the plea form with his attorney and understood everything on it. Defendant confirmed that he understood all the constitutional rights he was waiving, the nature of the charges, and the penalties and punishments. He said he had no questions for the court about any of his rights or consequences of the plea. Defendant orally entered a plea of guilty to count 1. Defense counsel joined, and the People accepted. The court found that defendant understood the charges against him and the consequences of his plea, and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and entered the plea. It then questioned him regarding the detailed factual basis described in the complaint and found a factual basis for the plea. The court sentenced defendant, pursuant to the agreement, to the low term of 16 months with credit for time served, and ordered him to pay a $40 court operations fee, a $30 criminal conviction fee, and a $300 restitution fine. On the People's motion, the court dismissed the remaining counts and allegations.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea; (3) whether the court erred in failing to consider defendant's ability to pay when imposing the fines and fees; and (4) whether trial counsel was ineffective. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. CODRINGTON
J.