Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC768806
ELIA, Acting P. J.Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, on August 30, 2007, defendant Victor Quiroz pleaded guilty to one count of transportation or sale or distribution of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a), count two). Defendant admitted that he had suffered one prior felony conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code sections 11370.2 and 11370, subdivisions (a) and (c). In exchange for his no contest pleas, defendant was promised his sentence would be seven years in state prison (top/bottom).
This admission rendered defendant ineligible for probation and subject to a consecutive three-year prison term sentencing enhancement.
When the court sentenced defendant on the same day he entered his plea, the court imposed the negotiated sentence of seven years consisting of the following: the midterm of four years on count two, plus a three-year consecutive term for the prior conviction.
On February 21, 2008, this court granted defendant relief from default for failing to file a timely notice of appeal. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on February 26, 2008.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Counsel filed an opening brief that stated the facts, but raised no specific issues. On May 14, 2008, we notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. To date, we have not received a response from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396], we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide "a brief description of the . . . procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.)
Unfortunately, since there was no preliminary hearing, no trial and no presentence/probation report because defendant asked to be sentenced on the day he entered his plea, the record does not contain any facts underlying the plea.
Procedural History
On June 8, 2007, the Santa Clara County District Attorney charged defendant in a four-count complaint with one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351, count one); one count of transportation, sale or distribution of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a), count two); one misdemeanor count of being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a), count three); and one count of driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a), count four).
The complaint alleged that prior to the commission of the offense charged as count one (possession for sale), defendant had been convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351 in Santa Clara County case number 159994. Further, the complaint alleged that prior to the commission of the offenses charged in counts one and two defendant had suffered two prior felony convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code sections 11370.2 and 11370, subdivisions (a) and (c) in Santa Clara County case number 165083.
As noted on August 30, 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to count two and admitted one prior felony conviction. Before defendant entered his guilty plea to count two and admitted that he had suffered a prior conviction, he was advised by the court of his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to confront his accusers and his right to trial by jury as required by Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [89 S.Ct. 1709], and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. Defendant freely and voluntarily waived those rights.
The prosecutor agreed to dismiss counts one, three and four and the remaining prior conviction allegations. The court dismissed the remaining charges and allegations.
The court advised defendant of the immigration consequences of conviction and other consequences of his plea of guilty, including that he would have to register as a narcotics offender. Counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the pleas. The court found that defendant had been properly advised of the elements of the charges and had been fully informed of his constitutional rights and had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. Further, the court found a factual basis for the plea contained in the police reports. The court accepted defendant's plea.
Defendant waived arraignment for judgment. The court sentenced defendant immediately according to the terms of the plea agreement. In addition, the court revoked defendant's probation in three other cases. The court imposed various fines and fees, including a $1400 restitution fund fine calculated using the formula in Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(2). The court imposed and suspended an additional $1400 pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. The court awarded defendant 128 days of custody credits. Lastly, the court ordered defendant to register as a narcotics offender pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590 upon release from custody.
Our review of the entire record satisfies this court that defendant's attorney has complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
Disposition
WE CONCUR: BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J., DUFFY, J.