Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. F06909236, Rosendo Pena, Jr., Judge.
Syda Kosofsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
PROCEEDINGS
On November 22, 2006, appellant, Glenn Godfrey, was initially charged in a criminal complaint with three felony counts. On April 24, 2007, a second amended consolidated criminal complaint was filed alleging 13 felony counts and a number of enhancements. During the early stages of these actions, appellant sought continuances and waived statutory and speedy trial time limits.
This complaint was consolidated from two criminal complaints filed in case Nos. F06501426 and F06909236 originally filed, respectively, in November 2006 and December 2006.
Appellant’s preliminary hearing was conducted on August 2, 2007. An information was filed alleging eleven felony counts, a great bodily injury enhancement, a weapon enhancement and four prior prison term enhancements. On August 17, 2007, appellant pled not guilty to all counts. Between September 27, 2007 and April 3, 2008, trial setting was continued and appellant generally waived time. On April 10, 2008, the time set for trial was vacated. The matter was continued until August 28, 2008. During this time, appellant entered general time waivers.
On August 28, 2008, appellant entered into a plea agreement and a felony advisement, waiver of rights and plea form (plea form). In the plea form, appellant acknowledged and waived his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl. He also acknowledged the consequences of his plea and that there was a factual basis to his plea. The attorneys set forth the terms of the plea agreement. Appellant would admit allegations of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211, count one), a weapon enhancement related to the robbery (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), amended allegation from count two), unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count four), unlawful evasion of a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count seven) and three prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant would receive a term of three years on count one. The trial court would sentence appellant to consecutive terms of one year for the weapon enhancement, one year on count two, a term of eight months on count four and three years for the prison term enhancements. Appellant would receive a concurrent term of two years on count seven. Appellant’s total prison term would be eight years eight months.
Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 (Boykin/Tahl).
Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The trial court advised appellant of the consequences of his plea, established appellant understood the terms of the plea agreement and had enough time to consult with his attorney. Appellant acknowledged executing the plea form and having no questions concerning its contents or the consequences of his plea. The court then advised appellant of, and appellant waived, his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl. The defense attorney, prosecutor and appellant stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.
Appellant pled no contest to counts one, two, four and seven. Appellant admitted the weapon enhancement and three prison term enhancements. The trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss the remaining allegations.
The dismissed allegations were as follows: assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count three), two counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), counts five & six), two counts of offering to bribe a witness (§ 138, subd. (a), counts eight & nine), solicitation to commit a crime (§ 653f, subd. (a), count ten) and possession of ammunition (§ 12316, subd. (b)(1), count eleven). The information also alleged a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a) as to count one and a fourth prior prison term enhancement.
On September 29, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant according to the terms of the plea agreement to a prison term of eight years eight months. The court awarded 769 days of custody credits and imposed a restitution fine of $1,600. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on October 29, 2008. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
FACTS
On November 10, 2006, the victim was carrying a duffle bag with $18,000 in cash. Appellant drove up to the victim in a pickup truck and struck the victim twice on the head and on the forearm with a baseball bat causing the victim to drop the duffle bag. Appellant picked up the duffle bag and left in the pickup truck. The victim identified appellant as the perpetrator to a police officer. On November 14, 2006, sheriff deputies noticed a pickup truck that had been reported as stolen. Appellant and a female companion exited a residence and drove away in the truck. When the deputies followed appellant, he drove through a red light and evaded them.
December 1, 2006, the deputies received information concerning the whereabouts of appellant’s female companion. The deputies witnessed a Chevrolet truck pick up the companion. Appellant passed the deputies driving at 70 miles per hour before accelerating to over 100 miles per hour. When a deputy’s patrol car hit appellant’s car from behind, appellant was forced into the air and landed on another patrol vehicle before stopping in soft dirt. Appellant attempted to flee on foot before he was captured and arrested after physically resisting the deputies.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on February 9, 2009, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.