Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. SCR586947, SCR4447834.
Jones, P.J.
Roberto Carrasco-Garcia (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to felony indecent exposure. (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. (1).) His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In August 2004, appellant pleaded guilty to committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14. (§ 288, subd. (a).) In September 2004, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation.
On July 27, 2010, appellant tried to attract the attention of the man standing in line ahead of him at the grocery store by hissing at him. When the man (a former police officer) turned around, appellant directed his attention down to where appellant was holding his erect penis. The man detained appellant until the police arrived.
Based on these facts, the court revoked appellant’s probation and a complaint was filed charging appellant with the offense set forth above. The complaint also alleged, as an enhancement, that appellant had one prior strike within the meaning of the three strikes law.
The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant pleaded guilty to indecent exposure, and admitted the prior strike. In exchange, the court sentenced appellant to 6 years on his lewd and lascivious conviction, plus 8 months doubled to 16 months on the indecent exposure charge for a total of 7 years, 4 months in prison.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The court confirmed that appellant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving before accepting his plea. The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea bargain. We see no error in the sentence. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, J., Needham, J.