Opinion
E068473
11-20-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD LEE LIZARDE, Defendant and Appellant.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BAF1700341) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark E. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed. James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Edward Lee Lizarde was charged by felony complaint with infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(1), count 1) and making criminal threats (§ 422, count 2). It was also alleged that he had served five prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The prosecutor subsequently made an oral motion to file an amended complaint to add the allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim in the commission of count 1. (§§ 12022.7, subd. (e), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the great bodily injury enhancement. The court dismissed the remaining allegations on the People's motion. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to five years in state prison on count 1, plus a consecutive four years on the enhancement, for a total sentence of nine years. The court awarded 32 days of presentence custody credits.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. --------
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, in propria persona, along with a request for certificate of probable cause. He alleged that the prosecutor offered him five years at his arraignment, and he was ready to sign a plea agreement, but his attorney advised him to wait until the next court date. At the next court date, the prosecutor amended the complaint to add the great bodily injury enhancement, and his attorney told him the five- year offer was no longer on the table. The court granted the certificate of probable cause. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with and admitted that, on or about March 25, 2017, he committed the crime of inflicting corporal injury on the mother of his child, a felony. (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1).) He also admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence, in the commission of count 1. (§§ 12022.7, subd. (e), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).)
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant was incompetently represented since his attorney advised him at his arraignment to wait until the next court date to enter a guilty plea, instead of immediately accepting the prosecutor's five-year offer; and (2) whether the prosecutor could withdraw the plea offer, despite the fact that he promised to hold it open until the next court date. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he apparently has not done. He did file a handwritten letter which stated, in part: "As of now I do not want to persue [sic] the appeal." This court considered the letter and, because it was not a clear request for dismissal and appellate counsel did not join in the request, deemed it to be a letter stating that no personal supplemental brief would be filed.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. MILLER
J.