Opinion
E070590
10-23-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BULMARO OROSCO MAGANA, Defendant and Appellant.
Donna L. Harris, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIF1801453) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jacqueline C. Jackson, Judge. Affirmed. Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Bulmaro Orosco Magana was charged by felony complaint with inflicting corporal injury on a spouse after previously being convicted of violating Penal Code section 273.5 (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1), count 1), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4), count 2). The complaint also alleged that defendant had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and admitted the prior strike and one prison prior. The court dismissed the remaining count and allegation. It then sentenced him to five years in state prison.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. --------
Defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, and filed a request for certificate of probable cause, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court granted the request. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2018, defendant was charged by felony complaint with inflicting corporal injury on a spouse after previously being convicted of a violation of section 273.5 (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1), count 1), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4), count 2). The complaint also alleged that defendant had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).
On April 4, 2018, defendant entered a plea agreement. Before accepting the plea, the court questioned him. It reviewed the terms of the agreement, including that the maximum time he could serve in state prison for the charges was nine years. Defendant confirmed his understanding of the agreement. The court asked defendant if he personally initialed and signed the plea form, and he confirmed that he did. Defendant confirmed that he understood all the constitutional rights he was waiving. The court also asked if he understood that his felony convictions would prevent him from owning or possessing a firearm and that if he was not a United States citizen, he could be deported, denied naturalization, or denied entry into the United States. Defendant said he understood. As a factual basis for the plea, defendant stated that he was pleading guilty because he, in fact, inflicted physical injury on C.N., a woman with whom he had a romantic relationship. Defense counsel joined in the plea, and the prosecutor accepted. The court found that defendant had entered the plea freely and voluntarily, and that he knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights. It then sentenced defendant, pursuant to the agreement, to the low term of two years on count 1, doubled pursuant to the prior strike, plus one year on the prison prior, for a total term of five years in state prison, with credit for time served. The court dismissed the remaining count and allegation.
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 two potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, when he accepted the negotiated plea after his attorney mistakenly advised him he was facing a maximum sentence of 30 years to life; and (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to correctly calculate his maximum potential sentence, before urging him to enter a negotiated plea agreement for a sentence of five years. 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 has not done.
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
Acting P. J. We concur: SLOUGH
J. RAPHAEL
J.