Opinion
E066214
02-28-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID ANTHONY RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
David K. Rankin, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FWV1405100) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael R. Libutti and Bridgid M. McCann, Judges. Affirmed. David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant David Anthony Ramirez pled no contest to felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant also admitted that he had sustained five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was sentenced to a total stipulated term of eight years in state prison with 976 days' credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Although the parties stipulated the police reports show a factual basis for the plea, a summary of the factual background is taken from the preliminary hearing transcript. --------
On December 5, 2014, officers were conducting a surveillance of defendant's residence in San Bernardino. As the officers left the area in their vehicle, they noticed defendant leave his residence in a black Toyota Corolla and drive towards the officers. The officers made a U-turn and tried to leave the area. However, defendant continued to follow the officers in an aggressive manner. Based on information the officers had on defendant, the officers believed defendant was possibly armed and eventually detained defendant at gunpoint.
Further investigation by the officers revealed the vehicle defendant was driving was stolen. The officers also conducted a search of defendant's residence pursuant to a search warrant. During the search, a .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun was found in defendant's bedroom.
Following the preliminary hearing, on April 23, 2015, an information was filed charging defendant with unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1) with a prior vehicle theft conviction (§ 666.5) and felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The information also alleged that the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The information further alleged that defendant had suffered five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On April 5, 2016, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 2, and admitted the five prior prison term allegations in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining allegations and pending cases and a stipulated term of eight years in state prison. Prior to entering his plea, defendant was advised of the plea agreement. The trial court asked defendant whether he understood his plea agreement and whether defendant read the plea form, the terms of his agreement and the constitutional rights he was waiving. Defendant responded in the affirmative. The trial court also inquired whether defendant had sufficient time to speak with his attorney and whether defendant understood his constitutional rights and the terms of the plea agreement. Defendant again replied in the affirmative. Defendant also indicated that he had initialed all of the boxes on the plea form and signed the plea form and that he had no questions as to the terms of his plea or his rights. Defendant's trial counsel also noted that he had sufficient time to discuss the plea, the charges, the terms of the plea, and constitutional rights with defendant.
After directly examining defendant, the trial court found that defendant read and understood his plea form and that defendant understood the charges and consequences of his guilty plea and admissions. The trial court also found that defendant knowingly, intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and that there was a factual basis for defendant's plea and admissions. Immediately thereafter, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement (three years on count 2, plus one year each for the five prior prison terms, for a total term of eight years). Defendant was awarded 976 days (488 days actual, plus 488 conduct). The remaining allegations and pending cases were dismissed. On June 3, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, 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, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record. Appellate counsel has summarily raised the issues of whether defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea, whether there was a factual basis for the plea, and whether defendant received the agreed-upon sentence.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: MILLER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.