From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Moultrie

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Mar 25, 2008
No. A119410 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON SHAWN MOULTRIE, Defendant and Appellant. A119410 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division March 25, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR233880.

Jones, P.J.

Aaron Shawn Moultrie appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to forgery, (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d)) false personation (§ 529), and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant has filed such a brief.

Unless otherwise indicated, all further section references will be to the Penal Code.

On June 23, 2006, appellant entered a Costco store in Vacaville and obtained a membership using false information. Subsequently, appellant reentered the store and tried to purchase 10 cartons of cigarettes using a fraudulent check. While the clerk was verifying the check, appellant grabbed the cigarettes, ran to the parking lot, jumped into a car where an accomplice was waiting, and fled. The police apprehended appellant a short time later.

Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with, inter alia, the offenses we have set forth above. In addition, and as is relevant, the information also alleged that appellant had one prior strike (§ 1170.12), and had served six prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)

The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant pleaded no contest to the offenses we have set forth above and admitted the strike and three of the prior prison term allegations. In exchange, appellant would be sentenced to the mid-term of two years for forgery doubled to four years pursuant to the strike finding, plus one year for each of the prior prison terms for a total of seven years.

Prior to sentencing, appellant asked the court to appoint new counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. The court conducted a hearing on appellant’s motion. Appellant voiced many complaints, the primary of which was that he wanted to withdraw his plea. Counsel saw no ground upon which such a motion could be based. The court granted the motion and appointed new counsel for appellant. New counsel never filed a motion to withdraw the plea.

At sentencing, the court imposed the agreed seven-year term. Appellant then filed this appeal.

Subsequently, appellant asked the court to grant a certificate of probable cause that would allow him to challenge the underlying aspects of his conviction. The court granted the request.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. The court made sure appellant understood the Constitutional rights he was waiving prior to accepting his plea. The court also explained to appellant the consequences of his plea. The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea bargain. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel. (People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218; see also People v. Cruz (1974) 12 Cal.3d 562, 566-567.)

We have also reviewed the supplemental brief appellant submitted. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the forgery charge or because he waived a formal reading of the complaint. (People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 216-218.) The agreed sentence did not violate section 654. (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295.) The court did not err when calculating the restitution fine. The authority appellant has cited, People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, does not indicate that the judge who accepted his plea was somehow barred from doing so.

We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 . (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: Simons, J., Stevens, J.

Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

People v. Moultrie

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Mar 25, 2008
No. A119410 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Moultrie

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON SHAWN MOULTRIE, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Date published: Mar 25, 2008

Citations

No. A119410 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2008)