Opinion
E069649
04-20-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HERIBERTO RODRIGUEZ MORFIN, Defendant and Appellant.
Jean Ballantine, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.Nos. INF1400716 & BLF1500206) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elaine M. Kiefer, Judge. Affirmed. Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Heriberto Rodriguez Morfin pled guilty to various charges in two separate cases—case Nos. INF1400716 and BLF1500206. A trial court sentenced him in both cases on the same day and imposed a term of 45 years in state prison in case No. INF1400716 and a concurrent term of 16 months in case No. BLF1500206.
Defendant filed a single notice of appeal for both cases, challenging the sentence or other matters not affecting the validity of the plea. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 8, 2015, the Riverside County District Attorney's Office (the district attorney) filed an information in case No. INF1400716, charging defendant with six counts of oral copulation with a child 10 years or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b), counts 1-6) and two counts of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years by force (§ 288, subd. (b)(1), counts 7-8), with allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 667.61, subd. (d)(6)) and personally inflicted bodily harm on the victim who was under 14 years of age (§ 667.61, subd. (d)(7)). The information further alleged that defendant had substantial sexual conduct with a victim under 14 years of age. (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8).) Defendant pled not guilty to all charges.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. --------
On November 23, 2015, the district attorney filed a felony complaint in case No. BLF1500206, charging defendant with possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia in the Riverside County jail. (§ 4573.8.)
On September 18, 2017, in case No. INF1400716, the information was orally amended to add one count of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years by force (§ 288, subd. (b)(1), count 9) and two counts of sexual penetration of a minor 14 years of age or younger by force (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(B), counts 10-11). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to counts 7 through 11. The court found a factual basis for the plea. The court continued the matter to October 17, 2017 for sentencing.
On October 17, 2017, in case No. BLF1500206, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to possession of a container for the purpose of possessing alcohol in the county jail. (§ 4573.8.) The court found a factual basis for the plea. The court proceeded to sentence him in both cases. In case No. INF1400716, the court sentenced defendant to 45 years in state prison, with credit for time served. In case No. BLF1500206, it sentenced him to 16 months in state prison, to be served concurrently with the term imposed in case No. INF1400716. The court dismissed all remaining counts and allegations.
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 several potential arguable issues: (1) whether the factual basis for each of defendant's guilty pleas was adequately established and/or whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding an adequate basis for each plea; (2) whether the court abused its discretion in ruling that the prosecution could introduce evidence at trial that both the victim and defendant tested positive for the herpes virus, even though defendant's positive blood test was taken approximately one year after his arrest, where the ruling could be a significant factor in his decision to enter the plea agreement; and whether this evidentiary ruling goes to the validity of the appeal, such that it may not be raised on appeal following a guilty plea; and (3) whether the court erred in denying the defense motion to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw taken without a search warrant. 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
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. SLOUGH
J.