From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hagler

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 4, 2011
No. E051641 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2011)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF153599, James T. Warren, Judge.

Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

RAMIREZ P.J.

Defendant, John Franklin Hagler, appeals from his conviction and four-year sentence after pleading guilty to nine counts of fraud (Pen. Code, § 532), 19 counts of theft (§ 487, subd. (a)), nine counts of auto theft (§ 487, subd. (d)(1)), and nine counts of failure to deliver title (Veh. Code, § 5753). Hagler also admitted an allegation that he caused property damage exceeding $200,000 (§ 12022.6, subd. (a)(2)).

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

Statement of Facts

The statement of facts is taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing held on March 9, 2010, the Information filed on March 23, 2010, and the declaration in support of arrest warrant filed December 1, 2009.

Hagler owned an auto broker business called Hagler Auto Group, which had its offices in Moreno Valley. Between June and October 2008, Hagler’s business contacted a number of victims who had advertised a vehicle for sale on marketplaces such as Craig’s List, Ebay or Auto Trader. In a typical set of transactions, Hagler would contract with the victim to purchase the vehicle for sale to a third party. Hagler would obtain the vehicle from the victim and promise either payment or to pay off the loan on the vehicle, but fail to either make the payment or pay off the loan. Hagler would then sell the vehicle to a third party, deliver the vehicle, and obtain payment, but fail to deliver title to the vehicle.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department began to investigate Hagler’s business in October 2008. In November 2008, Hagler closed the business and filed for bankruptcy. Hagler then re-opened the business out of his home, using equipment and employees from Hagler Auto Group, and advertised auto broker services under the name “Onebigdealer.com.”

Hagler was arrested on December 3, 2010 and pled guilty on April 27, 2010. Hagler was sentenced on June 28, 2010. This appeal followed after Hagler obtained a certificate of probable cause.

Discussion

After Hagler 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 Hagler an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. In his two-page supplemental brief, defendant poses three questions, reproduced here in full, which this court interprets as challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to the fraud and theft charges and as to Hagler’s criminal intent in general.

1. “How can I be charged with theft when I had full consent in the form of contracts from all parties involved to perform the transactions?

2. How was fraud committed when all documentation, licenses and parties were real?

3. How can criminal intent be proven when my company was involved in the same type transaction with about 20 other customers who were satisfied completely? We had every intention of satisfying all of our clients until Ebay closed our account forcing us into bankruptcy.”

These issues were forfeited when Hagler pled guilty, because a guilty plea requires an express waiver of the right to a trial. By pleading guilty, a defendant admits the sufficiency of the evidence, so issues which merely go to the guilt or innocence of a defendant are removed from consideration by entry of the plea. (People v. Meyer (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1157-1158.)

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120-121, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

Disposition

The conviction is affirmed.

We concur: HOLLENHORST J., MILLER J.


Summaries of

People v. Hagler

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Feb 4, 2011
No. E051641 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Hagler

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN FRANKLIN HAGLER, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Feb 4, 2011

Citations

No. E051641 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2011)