Opinion
H037263
12-14-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAUL RAMIREZ, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SS091243)
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant Raul Ramirez pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and admitted the allegation that he had personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of seven years for the attempted murder plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement for a total of 17 years in prison. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
Hereafter, unspecified section references are to the Penal Code.
I. FACTS
On or about April 4, 2009, victim Marvin Brown was observed in an alley in the Chinatown area of Salinas speaking with two men. When Brown turned and ran away, one of the men drew a gun and shot him. Brown was struck in the neck and paralyzed from the neck down. Statements from eye witnesses and surveillance video led to the arrest of defendant.
Defendant, who was 16 years old at the time, was charged as an adult pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d)(1). He was charged with one count of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). Both counts carried a section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement allegation.
Defendant initially pleaded not guilty and, after several continuances of the trial date, changed his plea to no contest with the understanding that he would be sentenced to 10 years for the enhancement, that the judge would decide whether he should receive the lower, middle, or upper term for attempted murder, and that the second count was to be dismissed or stricken in the interests of justice. (§ 1385.)
Prior to sentencing, defendant sought the opportunity to withdraw his plea and obtain new counsel on the ground he had been pressured into the plea agreement. After holding a Marsden hearing to determine whether the circumstances warranted substitution of counsel, the trial court denied defendant's request and sentenced him as indicated above.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118; see also People v. Sanchez (2011) _ Cal.4th _ (2011 Cal. LEXIS 12181 (Cal. Dec. 5, 2011)).
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, which is required by section 1237.5 when a defendant appeals from judgment entered following a guilty or no contest plea. Accordingly, this appeal is not operative insofar as it might challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (§ 1237.5, subd. (a).) The certificate is not required for review claims of error that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea's validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) We have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon grounds for appeal arising after entry of the plea. Having done so, we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
____
Premo, J.
WE CONCUR:
__________
Rushing, P.J.
_________
Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
--------