Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Nos. BA362879, BA362395, BA349060, Dennis J. Landin, Judge.
Christine C. Shaver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KITCHING, J.
Robert J. Edwards appeals from the judgments entered following his pleas of no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) (case BA362395) and petty theft with priors (Pen. Code, § 666, subd. (a)) (case BA362879), and revocation of probation granted following his plea of no contest to the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) (case BA349060). The trial court sentenced Edwards to a total term of three years in state prison. We affirm the judgments.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. Facts.
a. Case BA349060.
At approximately 8:30 p.m. on November 15, 2008, Los Angeles Police Officer Juan Corona was on patrol near Tamarind and Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles. Corona saw Edwards driving an older model, gray Nissan Sentra with license plate number 1NOT401. When the officer “ran the car, ” it “c[a]me up stolen.”
Marquez owned a 1985 Nissan Sentra with license plate number 1NOT401. On November 13, 2008, Marquez had discovered that the car had been stolen. He had not given anyone else permission to drive the car.
b. Case BA362395.
On August 1, 2009, Edwards was detained for a traffic violation. The officers ran a “wants/warrant check” which revealed that Edwards had an outstanding “felony no bail warrant.” Edwards was taken into custody.
During a strip search, officers recovered baggies which had been placed between Edwards’ buttocks and which he had thrown onto the floor. Inside one baggie was.49 grams of methamphetamine. Another baggie contained.56 grams of a substance resembling rock cocaine. The third baggie contained an off-white, rock-like substance resembling cocaine.
c. Case BA362879.
On October 3, 2009, Edwards took personal property from a Ross Dress for Less store. Prior to that, he had been convicted of six separate crimes for which he served prison terms.
2. Procedural history.
On November 18, 2009, Edwards was charged by information in case BA362879 with one count of petty theft with priors in violation of Penal Code section 666. It was further alleged that Edwards previously had been convicted of six crimes, including two counts of theft (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)), two counts of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666), one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) and one count of the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Finally, it was alleged pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), that Edwards had been convicted of four crimes for which he “did not remain free of prison custody... and did commit an offense resulting in a felony conviction [within] a period of five years subsequent to the conclusion of said term.”
At proceedings held on December 23, 2009, Edwards, who was acting in propria persona, suggested that, in view of the fact that “there were some mitigating factors, ” the trial court should grant him probation. The trial court responded: “... I don’t think it’s appropriate because you’re on probation in a separate case[, number BA349060, ] with a three-year suspended sentence. Frankly, I think my only option in [that] case is... three years in the state prison. I don’t know if the People are asking for more time than that. If you wish to enter pleas of guilty on the two open cases, [case BA362395 and case BA362879, ] I would impose the previously-ordered suspended sentence and run any other sentence on a new case concurrent with that. That’s my [inclination] at this point.”
The prosecutor indicated that her offer would be three years “because [Edwards] has... suspended time in his prior case and he could plead to count 1 in each of [the] two [pending] cases.... [The People would suggest] [t]hree years on all of them and go....”
The trial court then addressed Edwards: “There you have it, sir. If you want to enter pleas today, the sentence would be three years in state prison. If you don’t, you do have the right to have a trial in both of your cases as well as a formal probation violation hearing. Usually the probation violation hearing is conducted concurrently with the trial on the new case.” While Edwards considered the matter, the prosecutor indicated that, “for the record, and benefit of Mr. Edwards, in case BA362395, his maximum term is 10 years. In BA362879, his maximum term is seven years.... He has numerous one-year priors on one case and the same one-year priors on the other one. It’s mandatory state prison.” After giving the matter some thought, Edwards decided to “accept the People’s offer.”
The prosecutor informed Edwards of the charges pending against him. She stated: “Mr. Edwards, you’re before the court today in two cases. One is BA362395, and in that information you’re charged in count 1 with a felony, a violation of Health and Safety Code section11377[, ] sub[division] (a). It is also alleged that you have four convictions – prior convictions pursuant to [Penal Code section] 667.5[, subdivision] (b). There’s also an allegation for mandatory state prison. In that particular case, the maximum term, if you were to be convicted of everything, is seven years. Do you understand that?” Edwards responded that he understood.
The prosecutor continued: “In case BA362879, you’re charged in count 1 with a violation of Penal Code section 666. That is a felony. That’s petty theft with priors. Six prior convictions are alleged.... Pursuant to [Penal Code section] 667.5[, subdivision] (b), there are four prior convictions which are one-year priors. The maximum term you could be sentenced [to] on that case is also seven years. Do you understand the charges and the maximum term?” After Edwards again indicated that he understood, the prosecutor stated, “Now, you also are on probation here [in case BA349060]. You have a three-year suspended sentence, and the People have submitted a disposition to you that you agreed upon and [for which] you will plead... no contest; is that correct?” Edwards responded, “That’s correct.”
The prosecutor clarified the situation, stating, “No contest to the charges – count 1 and count 1 in these two informations. Because of these convictions, your probation will be violated. The court will impose the three-year sentence in your probation case and impose three years in each of these [other matters] to run concurrent.”
After waiving his right to a jury or court trial, his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, his right to subpoena witnesses and present a defense, and his privilege against self-incrimination, Edwards pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine as charged in case BA362395 and pleaded no contest to petty theft with priors as charged in case BA362879. The trial court then revoked Edwards’ probation in case BA349060.
At proceedings held on January 28, 2010, Edwards moved to withdraw his plea. He argued that his plea, which included the understanding that he would be sentenced to the upper term of three years in prison, was unlawful. He asserted that “in cases in which the defendant has not admitted alleged factors in aggravation and they have not been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by [a] jury, the sentencing court is limited to imposing a sentence no greater than the middle term.” The trial court denied the motion, stating, “I looked at the case file. It does appear the statutory maximum available in this case is three years. That was the plea agreement accepted by Mr. Edwards. There’s no reason for me to modify that.”
In cases BA362395 and BA362879, the trial court sentenced Edwards to terms of three years in state prison, the terms to run concurrent to each other and to the three year sentence imposed following revocation of probation in case BA349060. The People then dismissed the alleged enhancements in cases BA362395 and BA362879.
The trial court ordered Edwards to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a stayed $200 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $30 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $10 crime prevention fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.5). Following a motion made by appellate counsel, on July 29, 2010, the trial court filed an order awarding Edwards presentence custody credit for 573 days actually served and 118 days of good time/work time, for a total of 691 days.
Edwards filed a timely notice of appeal on April 9, 2010 and his request for a certificate of probable cause was granted that same day.
This court appointed counsel to represent Edwards on appeal on July 27, 2010.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
By notice filed November 4, 2010, the clerk of this court advised Edwards to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
REVIEW ON APPEAL
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully with counsel’s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
We concur: KLEIN, P.J., ALDRICH, J.