Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-080523-4
Banke, J.
Defendant Jamie Collins appeals from a judgment and sentence following a no contest plea and admission to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)). His attorney has filed a brief raising no issues and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any issues that could result in reversal or modification of the judgment if resolved in defendant’s favor. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Counsel declares she notified defendant he could file a supplemental brief raising any issue he wishes to call to this court’s attention. On January 27, 2010, counsel submitted a pro per letter she received from defendant, asking that it be considered by the court.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm.
Background
On November 27, 2007, defendant was arraigned on a complaint charging him with one count of murder (§ 187) with an enhancement of personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). On April 15, 2008, prior to the preliminary hearing, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds his prosecution had been unreasonably delayed in violation of his speedy trial rights. The district attorney opposed the motion. On April 23, the court deferred ruling until the preliminary hearing, set to begin the following day. The preliminary hearing proceeded over the course of several days. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding insufficient evidence of prejudice to defendant was shown at the preliminary hearing. The denial, however, was without prejudice to renewal at trial should evidence of prejudice to defendant be presented at that time. The court also held defendant to answer to the charge and the enhancement allegation.
Defendant was arraigned on the information on May 13, 2008. On July 25, he moved to dismiss the information on grounds his prosecution had been unreasonably delayed in violation of his speedy trial rights, citing extensively to the preliminary hearing transcript. The district attorney opposed the motion. On December 10, the court denied the motion on alternative procedural and substantive grounds. Since the motion was based on the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and already considered, the court did not believe the motion was properly renewed. As to the merits, the court found there was no convincing showing of prejudice to defendant. Defendant thereafter waived his speedy trial rights as to the commencement of trial.
On June 29, 2009, the district attorney moved to amend the information to add a count 2, charging voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)), and an enhancement for personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Defendant, in turn, completed a waiver of rights form and entered a no contest plea and admission to the newly added count and enhancement, in exchange for a term of 15 years in state prison. On July 17, in accordance with the agreed upon disposition, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of 11 years on the voluntary manslaughter charge, and an additional, consecutive four-year term for the firearm enhancement, for a total of 15 years in state prison. The 15 percent conduct credit limitation was noted as to defendant’s 610 days in custody, and other standard restitution amounts and fines and fees were imposed. The remaining murder and attached personal use allegation were dismissed.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on July 27, 2009. On September 2, he obtained a certificate of probable cause as to the speedy trial and due process issue, and on September 8, filed an additional notice of appeal.
Discussion
Upon our independent review of the record we find no meritorious issues that require further briefing on appeal. He was competently represented by appointed counsel at all times. His motions to dismiss, first the complaint and then the information, on grounds his prosecution had been unreasonably delayed in violation of his speedy trial and due process rights were properly denied. He thereafter personally waived time as to trial on the record. At the change of plea hearing, he was fully advised and entered into Cunningham and Arbuckle waivers. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated disposition.
Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270.
People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749.
In his pro per letter, defendant asserts he was “mislead” by his attorney and, so far as the court can discern, seems to be complaining his attorney was supposed to file an appeal, but he never heard from her. Whether or not there was a lack of communication, appointed counsel did file a notice of appeal and an appellant’s brief, which the court has reviewed.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J. Dondero, J.