People v. Klein

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMON ROBERTO KLEIN, Defendant…

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

Date published: Jan 9, 2008

No. A117075 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2008)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMON ROBERTO KLEIN, Defendant and Appellant. A117075 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division January 9, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR064298

Reardon, Acting P.J.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant Ramon Roberto Klein entered a plea of guilty to sexual battery (Pen. Code,¹ § 243.4, subd. (a)) for an agreed-to term of four years in state prison. All remaining charges, a prior strike allegation (§ 1170.12), a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a probation ineligibility provision (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)) were all stricken. Appellant was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated disposition.

1 All section references are to the Penal Code.

The evidence adduced at the Proposition 115 preliminary hearing established that the victim, who had been separated from her friends at an event called “Reggae on the River,” was invited by appellant to stay at his camp. While she was sleeping, appellant got up and sexually assaulted her. As she was leaving the camp after the sexual assault, appellant punched and slapped her in the face. She positively identified appellant as her assailant to police.

Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and conclude that there are no arguable issues.

Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. The record establishes that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, with full advisement of rights and the consequences of his plea. He received the sentence to which he agreed and there was no sentencing error.

Appellant has filed a supplemental appellant’s opening brief in pro. per. He contends that he is innocent of the crime to which he pled; that his plea was involuntary; and that his trial counsel was ineffective. We have considered these contentions and conclude that they are belied by the record and lack merit.²

2 Appellant has filed a related petition for writ of habeas corpus (No. A120156), which we address by separate order filed on the date of this opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Sepulveda, J., Rivera, J.