From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Navarez

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Apr 24, 2018
H044964 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2018)

Opinion

H044964

04-24-2018

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID NAVAREZ, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS170023)

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant David Navarez pleaded no contest to possessing methamphetamine in a prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a)) and admitted an allegation that he had a prior "strike" conviction for robbery (§§ 1170.12, subd. (c)). Defendant was sentenced to two years in prison.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------

On appeal, defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts, but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.

Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record, keeping in mind that our review is limited to grounds for appeal that occurred after entry of defendant's no contest plea and do not affect the plea's validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1), (b)(4)(B).) We agree with defendant's appellate counsel that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Following the California Supreme Court's direction in Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case.

A complaint was filed alleging that defendant possessed methamphetamine in a prison. (§ 4573.6, subd. (a).) The complaint also alleged that defendant had two prior "strike" convictions for robbery (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)).

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to the substantive offense and admitted one of the strike allegations. In his waiver of rights form, defendant specified the factual basis for the plea: "On 10/11/16, while confined in [Salinas Valley State Prison] in Monterey County, [defendant] did possess a usable amount of methamphetamine."

The trial court sentenced defendant to a two-year prison term, to be served consecutively to a prison term he was serving in another case. The sentence was calculated at one-third of the midterm, doubled.

III. DISCUSSION

Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/_________

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________

GREENWOOD, P.J. /s/_________

GROVER, J.


Summaries of

People v. Navarez

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Apr 24, 2018
H044964 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2018)
Case details for

People v. Navarez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID NAVAREZ, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Apr 24, 2018

Citations

H044964 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2018)