From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lara

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Dec 18, 2009
No. A125878 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AUGUSTINE LARA, Defendant and Appellant. A125878 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division December 18, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR146568

RUVOLO, P. J.

Augustine Lara appeals from a three-year state prison sentence, subject to local custody credits, and the related fees and fines he received after he pleaded no contest to two charges pursuant to a negotiated disposition. Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende instead was requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.

A criminal complaint was filed on June 17, 2009, charging appellant with four counts, including kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a) (count 1)), corporal injury to spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a) (count 2)), threats to commit a crime resulting in death or bodily injury (§ 422 (count 3)), and vandalism over $400 (§ 549, subd. (b)(1) (count 4)). The complaint alleged that counts 1 and 3 constituted serious felonies (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)), and also alleged special allegations based on appellant’s prior convictions (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).

All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

On June 24, 2009, the parties reached a negotiated disposition. Per the disposition, appellant entered a no contest plea to count 2 (as charged) and count 4 (as a misdemeanor). All other counts, including special allegations, set forth in the complaint were dismissed subject to a Harvey waiver. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.) Prior to accepting the plea the court properly took a waiver of appellant’s right to a preliminary hearing, confirmed that he understood the terms of his plea as set forth in the change of plea form (including a waiver of his Boykin/Tahl rights (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122), advised him of the four-year maximum prison term he could face for count 2 and advised him of the potential immigration consequences of his plea.

Appellant was sentenced on July 28, 2009. The court received, read and considered the probation officer’s report dated July 23, 2009, recommending that probation be denied, and also received, read and considered three letters from appellant, his mother, and grandmother requesting that appellant be granted probation. Citing appellant’s past criminal history, pending case warrants in Solano County, poor prior probation performance and the serious nature of the instant offense, the court denied probation and imposed a middle-term state prison sentence pursuant to the negotiated disposition. The court awarded appellant 66 days of credit for time served (44 actual days plus 22 § 4019 credits) and imposed the following: a $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4); victim restitution in an amount to be determined by the probation department and the court; two $20 court security fees (§ 1465.8); two $30 criminal conviction assessment fees (Gov. Code § 70373, subd. (a)); a $75 booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.3); ordered appellant to provide blood and saliva samples (§ 296); and a $400 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), which was stayed. Appellant was also advised of his appeal rights, and of the period of parole following his release from state prison.

Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. We discern no error in the sentencing. The refusal to grant probation, the sentencing choices made by the trial court and the negotiated disposition were consistent with applicable law. The restitution fines and penalties imposed were supported by the law and facts. At all times appellant was represented by counsel.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: REARDON, J. RIVERA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Lara

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Dec 18, 2009
No. A125878 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Lara

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AUGUSTINE LARA, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Dec 18, 2009

Citations

No. A125878 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2009)