Opinion
E067331
05-09-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY MARIO PADILLA, Defendant and Appellant.
Cindi B. Mishkin, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FSB1502803) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Richard V. Peel, Judge. Affirmed. Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Larry Mario Padilla was charged by felony complaint with receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a), count 1.) The complaint also alleged that defendant had one prior strike conviction. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1. He also admitted the prior strike conviction. In exchange, the court sentenced him to 32 months in state prison and dismissed five other misdemeanor cases.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, in propria persona, based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. He also requested a certificate of probable cause, noting that although he was sentenced to 32 months in prison, the minute order said he was sentenced to three years in prison. The court denied the request for certificate of probable cause. However, an amended abstract of judgment was filed that day reflecting that defendant was sentenced to two years eight months in prison. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2015, a felony complaint was filed, charging defendant with one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a), count 1) and alleging that he had one prior strike conviction. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) Defendant initially pled not guilty. He subsequently withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea agreement. Before accepting the plea, the court questioned him. It asked defendant if he personally initialed and signed the plea form, and he confirmed that he did. The court asked if he discussed the plea form with his attorney and understood everything on it. Defendant confirmed that he understood all the constitutional rights he was waiving, the nature of the charges, and the penalties and punishments. He then affirmed that no one had made any other promises, no one had used threats or violence to force him to plead guilty, and he was entering his plea of his own free will. The court found that defendant had read and understood the plea form and was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights.
Defendant orally entered a plea of guilty to count 1, and he admitted the prior strike conviction. Defense counsel joined, and the People accepted. The parties stipulated that the investigative reports in the court file, as well as defendant's rap sheet, contained a factual basis for the plea. The court found a factual basis for the plea and dismissed the five misdemeanor cases noted in the plea agreement. It then sentenced defendant, pursuant to the agreement, to the low term of 16 months on count 1, doubled pursuant to the prior strike, for a total sentence of 32 months in state prison.
We note the abstract of judgment reflected that defendant was sentenced to three years in state prison. However, the trial court corrected the mistake and filed an amended abstract of judgment on December 5, 2016, reflecting the sentence of two years eight months. --------
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 one potential arguable issue: whether defendant's plea was constitutionally valid, and whether the court complied with its duty under section 1192.5 to find a sufficient factual basis for the plea. 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: MILLER
J. SLOUGH
J.