Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. RIF10005232, Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
McKinster, Acting P.J.
INTRODUCTION
On November 29, 2010, an amended felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Devin Lee Bowman (defendant) with attempted murder under Penal Code sections 664 and 187 (count 1); assault with a firearm under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a) (count 2); possession and ownership of a semiautomatic firearm by a person with a felony conviction under Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1) (now § 29800) (count 4); unlawfully driving or taking a motor vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 5); receiving stolen property under Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a) (count 6); and active participation in a criminal street gang under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a) (count 7).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
The amended complaint also charged codefendant George Brown Petty VII with violating section 32 (count 3). Defendant and Petty were both charged in counts 5, 6, and 7.
Moreover, the complaint alleged that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the offense (§§ 12022.53, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8); (count 1)); that defendant personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8); count 2); that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8); counts 1 & 2); and that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b); counts 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6). The complaint also alleged that defendant had served a prior prison term. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
On November 29, 2010, in accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, defendant withdrew his not guilty pleas that he had entered previously. Thereafter, defendant pled guilty to count 1, and admitted the allegations under section 12022.53, subdivision (c) and under 186.22, subdivision (b); in exchange for a negotiated term of 29 years and a dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations.
On April 22, 2011, defendant was sentenced on this case and on two other felonies to which he pled guilty on April 18. As specified in the plea agreement, defendant received an aggregate sentence of 29 years, as follows: nine years on count 1, and a consecutive 20 years for the enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (c). Thereafter, the court imposed and stayed a 10-year term for the enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b). In addition, defendant received a concurrent two years for a conviction under section 243, subdivision (d) in case No. SWF1100020, and a concurrent two years for a conviction under section 4573.6 in case No. RIF1100956. Defendant received 333 days of presentence credit.
On June 1, 2011, defendant filed his notice of appeal and indicated that his appeal was “based on the sentence or other matters not affecting the validity of the plea.”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
When entering a guilty plea, defendant admitted that he attempted to murder Randy C.; and that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the offense, and that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang.
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed briefs 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, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief in both cases, but he has not done so. 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.
We concur: Richli, J., Miller, J.