From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mena

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division
Sep 10, 2008
No. B199375 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 10, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS MENA, Defendant and Appellant. B199375 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Second Division September 10, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA294584

THE COURT:

Luis Mena (appellant) appeals following his plea of guilty to one count of sale or transportation of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). He admitted the allegation that the controlled substance exceeded four kilograms by weight. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (a)(2).)

The trial court sentenced appellant to the agreed-upon term of nine years in state prison consisting of the midterm of four years on the transportation count and five consecutive years for the weight allegation.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues. On May 21, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

Appellant pleaded guilty toward the end of two days of preliminary hearing testimony from various law enforcement officers who investigated a large narcotics transportation operation. The court reporter provided an affidavit stating that she had inadvertently deleted her notes from the first day of the preliminary hearing, January 22, 2007. The testimony from the following day indicates that, beginning in 2004, extensive surveillance and wire-tapping of various members of the operation occurred. At the preliminary hearing, there were 14 defendants charged with one or more of 14 counts.

Appellant was charged with violating three statutes: Penal Code section 182, subdivision (a)(1), conspiracy to commit the crime of narcotics trafficking as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) (count 1); Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), the sale/transportation/offer to sell a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine (count 12); and Health and Safety Code section 11351, possession for sale of a controlled substance (count 13). Count 1 included the allegation that the substance exceeded 80 kilograms in weight, and counts 12 and 13 included the allegation that the substance exceeded 40 kilograms in weight. The contents of wiretapped conversations between appellant and a codefendant were revealed at the hearing. There were also telephone conversations in which references to appellant were made.

At one point in the investigation, law enforcement seized $200,635 of suspected drug-sale proceeds hidden in a car that had been driven from a home where one of appellant’s codefendants had taken a black bag the night before. Law enforcement officers also found 103 kilograms of cocaine hidden beneath a load of lettuce in a truck occupied by three of appellant’s codefendants.

The record shows that appellant’s attorney filed a motion to suppress evidence on December 29, 2006. The minute order of January 22, 2007, states that the trial court and counsel conferred regarding the motion. There is no record of the motion being heard, however.

After a recess in the preliminary hearing on January 23, 2007, the trial court stated to one of appellant’s attorneys, Mr. Longo, that appellant had “made some signals with his hands and I wanted to make sure this was something he isn’t forced into doing, that he is doing this voluntarily. If he needs additional time to talk to you, fine. But I don’t want to waste a lot of time if he doesn’t want to do it.” Mr. Longo then explained for the record that during the recess, appellant’s attorneys had discussed a disposition with him. They had discussed with appellant the fact that the district attorney’s nine-year offer was firm. In Mr. Longo’s opinion the offer was not unreasonable, based on the facts as he knew them. The court noted that the maximum possible sentence after conviction at trial would be 29 years.

When the trial court asked appellant if he had had sufficient time to talk to both his attorneys, appellant replied, “Well, time is short and I’ve been waiting here for a very long time and I don’t want to wait anymore.” When Mr. Longo asked appellant if he wished to think it over, appellant said, “If I’m not going to get a better offer then I can take care of this right now.” Appellant added that he would plead guilty as long as the trial court included the recommendation that he be enrolled in fire camp. The trial court stated it would make the recommendation, but appellant had to understand that it was not binding upon the Department of Corrections. Appellant said he understood.

Appellant then entered his plea to count 12 and to a new weight allegation, amended downward, to arrive at the nine-year sentence. During the plea, the district attorney explained that appellant was entitled to 50 percent credits only if he earned full custody credits for good behavior and for working, and appellant said he understood and still wanted to enter into the plea agreement. The district attorney fully explained appellant’s constitutional rights. Appellant was informed regarding parole conditions and the effect of his plea on his immigration status if he was not a citizen. The district attorney explained all fees, fines, and the registration requirement. When asked if anyone had threatened him or threatened anyone close to him to coerce appellant into entering the plea, appellant said, “No.” When asked if he was pleading freely and voluntarily because he believed it was in his best interests to do so, appellant responded, “Yes.” The district attorney established a factual basis by asking appellant, “Do you admit that on or about April 4th of 2005 that you agreed with Eric Ruano to provide a truck for the transportation of over four kilograms of cocaine to the east coast and that pursuant to that agreement another conspirator transported cocaine on its way to your house; do you admit all of those facts?” Appellant replied, “Yes.” The trial court found that appellant had freely and voluntarily entered his plea and his admission, that he understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea and admission, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with the plea agreement.

On March 27, 2007, appellant filed a notice of appeal in which he stated, “I was forced to plead guilty. I am innocent.” The trial court granted a certificate of probable cause.

After examining the entire record, we are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities, that no arguable issues exist and that appellant freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Mena

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division
Sep 10, 2008
No. B199375 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 10, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Mena

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS MENA, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

Date published: Sep 10, 2008

Citations

No. B199375 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 10, 2008)