Opinion
E068487
02-26-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES HENRY, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
Renée Paradis, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FVI1403352) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson, Judge. Affirmed. Renée Paradis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant James Henry, Jr., along with another man, assaulted, subdued, and robbed the victim. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant eventually pled no contest to false imprisonment by force (Pen. Code, § 236) and second degree robbery (§ 211). In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was sentenced to a total term of three years eight months in state prison with 1,112 days of credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background is taken from the police reports. --------
On August 23, 2014, defendant and another man drove up in a pickup truck towards the victim, who was standing in the front yard of his riverfront home near the California/Arizona bridge. The truck almost hit the victim, who fell to the ground, as he moved to avoid the truck. Defendant and his companion exited the truck and began beating the victim. The two men then subdued the victim, dragged him toward the house, and wrapped his wrists, upper body, and head in duct tape. The two men searched the victim's garage, his room, and a guest bedroom, and then fled the scene. The victim's wallet was stolen and pages were missing from a notebook in the victim's bedroom.
On August 30, 2014, a San Bernardino County Sheriff's deputy, with the assistance from an officer with the Colorado River Indian Tribes Police Department (CRIT PD), located and detained defendant. When defendant was apprehended he stated, " 'You got me. You got me.' " CRIT PD arrested defendant on unrelated charges and transported him to the CRIT adult detention. Defendant was a tribal member with an extensive criminal history, and on probation through the Tribal Court.
On September 2, 2014, the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office filed a complaint against defendant, charging defendant with home invasion robbery (§ 211; count 1) in concert with two or more other persons (§ 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)); kidnapping to commit another crime (§ 209, subd. (b)(1); count 2); and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3).
Defendant subsequently filed writ of habeas corpus petitions, first in the San Bernardino Superior Court (case No. WHCJS1500094), which was denied on June 2, 2015, and then in this court (case No. E063940), which was denied on July 20, 2015. The petitions challenged his extradition to California. He claimed that the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department had no legal right to take him out of tribal jail in Arizona, and bring him to California without first seeking and obtaining proper extradition from the CRIT. Defendant also argued that federal and state law did not grant the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department the authority to arrest defendant on a CRIT reservation located in Arizona. Defendant subsequently filed a writ of habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court, which was also denied.
After his state petitions were denied, defendant filed a federal writ of habeas corpus petition in the Central District of California. The federal writ was denied on March 1, 2017, on the basis that Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37 precluded relief while state criminal proceedings were ongoing. (See Henry v. McMahon (C.D.Cal., Mar. 1, 2017, No. EDCV 15-02384-CAS (DTB)) 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 56153.) A certificate of appealability was denied that same day. Defendant did not file a motion to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds.
On April 25, 2017, the People amended the complaint to add count 4, false imprisonment by force (§ 236), and count 5, second degree robbery (§ 211). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to counts 4 and 5, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining allegations and a total sentence of three years eight months in state prison with credit for time served. After directly examining defendant, the trial court found that defendant read and understood his plea form and that defendant understood the nature of the charges, the consequences of the plea, and his constitutional rights. The court further found that defendant had knowingly, intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights, that his plea was entered into freely and voluntarily, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The parties stipulated that the police reports provided a factual basis for the plea. Immediately thereafter, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement and the remaining allegations were dismissed. Defendant was awarded 1,112 days of credit for time served.
On May 23, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause on the basis of the extradition issue. The trial court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause on May 31, 2017.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, 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 conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. FIELDS
J.