People v. Haney

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT DANIEL HANEY, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Mar 10, 2009

No. F055461 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County No. CRF24341, Eleanor Provost, Judge.

Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT ^*

* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Levy, J.

INTRODUCTION

On June 18, 2007 appellant, Robert Daniel Haney, was charged in a criminal complaint with failure to appear while on bail (Pen. Code, § 1320.5). Appellant allegedly failed to appear in case No. CRF22953, a case in which he was charged with transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). On March 21, 2008, the parties waived a preliminary hearing and the complaint was deemed an information.

On April 2, 2008, appellant executed a felony advisement and waiver of rights. Appellant was informed of his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.¹ Appellant’s plea was a straight up plea without a promise of a particular sentence. Appellant was further informed of and waived the significant consequences of his plea. Appellant acknowledged a factual basis for his plea. Appellant pled guilty to failure to appear while on bail. Appellant waived a presentence report in the instant action.² The court sentenced appellant to a sentence consecutive to his sentence in case No. CRF22953 of eight months, one-third the midterm of two years. Appellant’s total sentence in both actions was three years eight months. The court imposed a restitution fine and granted applicable custody credits. Appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

1 Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.

2 A probation report had been prepared in the other case.

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 September 15, 2008, 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.