Opinion
A102341.
10-16-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTURO GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant.
Arturo Garcia appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of nolo contendere. Appellants court-appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
An information filed in Alameda County Superior Court charged appellant with premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187).[] The information further alleged sentencing enhancements for the use of a deadly weapon (§12022, subd. (b)) and the infliction of great bodily injury during the commission of the offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In a negotiated disposition, the court granted the prosecutions motion to dismiss the allegation that the offense was premeditated. Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to attempted murder (§§ 664, 187) and admitted both using a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) during the commission of the offense. Appellant entered his plea with the understanding that the court would sentence him to 13 years in state prison.
The court sentenced appellant to the aggravated term of nine years in state prison for attempted murderer (§§ 664, 187) and enhanced the term by one year for the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and three years for the infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Thus, the aggregate term totaled the agreed 13 years in state prison. The court ordered appellant to pay a $2,600 restitution fine and granted him 35 days total presentence credit.[]
As part of the negotiated plea, appellant agreed to waive all his accrued presentence credits up until the day he pleaded nolo contendere.
Before appellant entered his plea, the court advised him of the constitutional rights he would be waiving and the direct consequences of his plea. Appellant expressly waived his constitutional rights and knowingly and voluntarily pleaded nolo contendere and admitted the special allegations.
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
There was no sentencing error.
There are no issues that require further briefing.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Kay, P. J., Rivera, J.