Opinion
H044358
08-29-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE ABRUM LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1247397)
Defendant George Abrum Lopez appeals his convictions after pleading no contest to charges of first degree burglary and exhibiting a weapon. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. He has not. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable appellate issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440-441.) We therefore provide a summary of the facts and procedural history of the case, describe the punishment imposed, and will affirm the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)
I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
Defendant was caught burglarizing an apartment in San Jose in 2012. The onsite property manager saw him inside and confronted him. Defendant was holding a knife and had a backpack. He left the backpack and ran. Police later found in the backpack a laptop computer stolen from the apartment.
Defendant was charged with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459 and 460, subd. (a)) and exhibiting a weapon (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(1)). The complaint also alleged a prior felony conviction for possession of stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). A preliminary examination was conducted and defendant was held to answer.
Defendant pleaded no contest to both charges and admitted the prior conviction. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but the sentence was suspended for three years, with conditions including that he serve one year in county jail and successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program. The trial court emphasized that if defendant did not successfully complete the drug program, he could be required to serve the suspended five-year prison sentence.
In July 2015, a petition was filed alleging that defendant had violated his probation by committing new offenses and by failing to successfully complete the drug rehabilitation program. According to the petition, defendant had been terminated from the program for rules violations including stealing, smoking, and possessing contraband. Defendant admitted the probation violations. In September 2016, the previously suspended five-year prison sentence was executed and defendant received custody credits of 914 days. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal indicating he was appealing the sentence and matters not affecting the validity of his plea, and also challenging the validity of his no contest plea. He requested a certificate of probable cause, listing the following items as grounds for issuance of the certificate: "Ineffective assistance of counsel [¶] [Citation.][;] [¶] Switched Mis[]demeanors to Felonies to give me a strike PC 1009[;] [¶] I was forced to wa[i]ve time; [¶] Santa Clara County courts are set on Punishment not Justice; [¶] Unlawful Plea Extraction; [¶] Civil Rights Ralph & Bane Act Violations; [¶] Civil Rights Unruh Act Violations[;] [¶] Self[-]incrimination Evi. 940[;] [¶] U.S. constitution/Self[-]incrimination[;] [¶] Accusatory Pleadings[;] [¶] PC 521[;] [¶] PC 522[;] [¶] Prosecutorial Vindictiveness[;] [¶] Fabricate[;] [¶] Railroad[;] [¶] Unlawful Plea Bargain[;] [¶] Reasonably Competent Test." The trial court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause. We have found no arguable appellate issue.
II. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Grover, J.
WE CONCUR:
/s/_________
Greenwood, P. J. /s/_________
Premo, J.