Opinion
C086317
10-17-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN RAMOS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CRF15078)
Appointed counsel for defendant John Ramos asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
Defendant entered the victim's house on February 12, 2015, with the intent to commit theft. The victim contacted law enforcement and defendant was apprehended. Defendant refused to cooperate and fought with the officers, ramming a shopping cart into one of the officers while trying to get away.
A criminal complaint charged defendant with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459 -- count I) and resisting arrest with force or violence (Pen. Code, § 69-- count II), both felonies. The complaint further alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction for making criminal threats.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Based on two separate mental evaluations regarding defendant's competency, the trial court declared defendant incompetent to stand trial and committed him to Napa State Hospital. The trial court subsequently received a certification of defendant's mental competency pursuant to section 1372 and reinstated criminal proceedings.
Defendant pleaded no contest to both counts in exchange for presentencing release on his own recognizance pursuant to a Cruz waiver. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, defendant agreed that, if he violated the conditions of his Cruz waiver, he would be allowed to withdraw his plea to count II and his plea to count I would become a "straight up" plea, meaning he would be exposed to 2, 4, or 6 years in state prison. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for defendant's plea.
People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1250 (Cruz). --------
Defendant failed to appear for sentencing. The trial court was informed defendant was in custody in Madera County and had committed two new misdemeanors in Yuba County. Finding defendant violated his Cruz waiver, the trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
Nearly two years later, defendant admitted he was in violation of his Cruz waiver. However, he moved to withdraw his plea claiming his attorney at the time of entry of the plea failed to advise him of the nature and consequences of his Cruz waiver, he was not properly educated about the nature and consequences of a Cruz waiver while admitted at Napa State Hospital, and he was not in his proper state of mind at the time of entry of the plea due to his medications.
The trial court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. It reiterated the previous finding that defendant violated his Cruz waiver, denied probation, and sentenced defendant as follows: the upper term of six years on the burglary conviction (count I), to be served concurrent to the time defendant was serving in the Madera County case. The trial court had previously dismissed the prior strike allegation. The trial court imposed various fines and fees and awarded defendant 479 days of presentence credit (251 actual days plus 228 conduct days).
The trial court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. /S/_________
MURRAY, J.