Opinion
D076010
10-31-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND HAYES Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond Hayes, in pro. per.; and Justin Behravesh, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD276959) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sharon B. Majors-Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Raymond Hayes, in pro. per.; and Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Raymond Hayes pleaded guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or roommate (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). He also admitted inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)); admitted a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The parties agreed the balance of the charges would be dismissed and that there would be a 12-year "lid" on the sentencing options.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
The trial court denied a defense motion to strike the serious/violent felony [strike] prior and denied probation. Hayes was sentenced to a determinate term of 12-years in prison. The court imposed a restitution fine of $300 and several other fees and assessments.
Hayes did not object to any of the fines, fees or assessments that were imposed. He did not request a hearing on his ability to pay any of them. --------
Hayes filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Hayes the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and he has responded with a one-page statement which was apparently prepared by another inmate. We will discuss the supplemental brief below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In his change of plea form Hayes admitted he willfully inflicted corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon another with whom he had a dating relationship which caused great bodily injury. He admitted a prior strike and serious felony prior.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has asked this court to review the record for error. To assist this court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified the following possible issues he considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal: 1) whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea; 2) whether Hayes was properly advised of his constitutional rights before pleading guilty; 3) whether the sentence imposed on Hayes was authorized; and 4) whether the court erred when it denied Hayes's motion to strike the serious/violent [strike] prior.
In his supplemental brief Hayes raises what he considers to be a possible issue: "I took a plea deal for 12 years with [the] understanding that I would receive the credit earning of 20 [percent]. The way I was sentenced by the judge has my enhancement as the controlling offense in my case." Hayes believes that is an issue for appeal.
The record does not contain any "understanding" about receiving conduct credits at 20 percent. There was a discussion at the time of the guilty plea when the court advised Hayes of the credit limitations that would exist if he pleaded guilty to the offense and admitted the great bodily injury enhancement. At page 13 of the reporter's transcript the judge explained to Hayes that the fact that Hayes inflicted great bodily injury would result in his future conduct credit being limited to 15 percent. Hayes acknowledged he understood the consequences of admitting the enhancement. The supplemental brief does not present an arguable issue for reversal on appeal.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Hayes on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. AARON, J.