Opinion
E074172
07-13-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAUTIEF RILEY HAMLET, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. FVA1400519) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Knish, Judge. Affirmed. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Mautief Riley Hamlet pled guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).) A trial court sentenced him, as agreed upon, to the low term of 16 months in state prison. He subsequently filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which the court denied.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. --------
Defendant filed a handwritten notice of appeal, in propria persona. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was originally charged by felony complaint with being a felon carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subds. (a) & (c)(1), count 1), unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and receiving stolen property (a vehicle) (§ 496d, subd. (a), count 3). The complaint also alleged that he had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and one prior prison conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 3, in exchange for a sentence of 16 months in state prison. The plea agreement stated that any state prison commitment would be followed by a period of parole of three to four years. On April 30, 2014, the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the agreement and dismissed the remaining counts and allegations.
On or about March 23, 2015, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.18 to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor. The court held a hearing, concluded that he was not eligible for Proposition 47 relief, and denied the petition.
On September 29, 2019, defendant filed an in propria persona motion to vacate his judgment, on the ground that authorities released him from custody to postrelease community supervision instead of parole, as specified in the plea agreement. He claimed he did not get what he bargained for; thus, his guilty plea was nullified. The court denied the motion.
DISCUSSION
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 and one potential arguable issue: whether the plea agreement was null and void because release on parole was a material term of the agreement, and defendant was instead released on postrelease community supervision. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
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.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J. We concur: MILLER
Acting P. J. CODRINGTON
J.