Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF100645 Gordon R. Burkhart, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster, J.
INTRODUCTION
On January 4, 2002, an information charged defendant and appellant Jose Manuel Garcia (defendant) and two codefendants with attempted murder under Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a). The information also alleged that defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of sections 12022.53, subdivision (c) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). The information further alleged that defendant acted to benefit a street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
On September 6, 2002, defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty and admitted the enhancements. As part of his plea, it was agreed that defendant would be released to attend to his personal affairs and, as long as he returned for sentencing on October 11, the allegations of premeditation and deliberation would be stricken, and he would receive a term of 25 years, rather than a life sentence. However, if defendant failed to appear at the sentencing hearing, he would receive a term of “life plus 30.” Defendant failed to appear at the October sentencing hearing.
On December 23, 2010, defendant was in custody; the record does not reveal how this occurred. On January 28, 2011, defendant was sentenced. The trial court determined that the original possible sentence of “life plus 30” was inaccurate and the actual sentence should have been “life with a minimum parole date of 15 years plus 20 years determinative.” Defendant declined to request to withdraw his guilty plea. The court, therefore, sentenced defendant accordingly. Defendant’s credits were calculated to be 428 actual days, plus 64 conduct days, for a total of 492 days.
On February 10, 2011, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On September 19, 2001, someone from another vehicle shot at Brad Angle, a student driving back to Claremont College, while he was on the 60 freeway. The other vehicle was a Toyota Camry with a license plate of “SARKEES.” The Camry followed the victim, but the victim accelerated and lost the Camry. The victim exited the freeway and called the police. Officer Vaughan from the California Highway Patrol subsequently saw the Camry, after it had run into a dump truck.
Officer Vaughan later interviewed Luis Moreno; he was the younger brother of defendant. Moreno informed the officer that he and defendant, along with friends, were returning from Riverside in the stolen Camry. They were chased off the freeway by another car from which someone had flashed gang signs. They exchanged gunfire. When interviewed, defendant stated that he had shot at another vehicle because the occupants had been flashing gang signs and had been trying to crash their car into them. Officer Parga testified that defendant was a member of the Cuatro Flats gang.
ANALYSIS
After 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, 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, 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: Hollenhorst, Acting P.J., Codrington, J.