Opinion
H043285
02-07-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FREDDIE LEE TAYLOR, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1348441)
Defendant Freddie Lee Taylor pleaded no contest to 11 counts of felony false imprisonment (Pen. Code, §§ 236, 237) and admitted a strike allegation (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the strike allegation and sentenced him to a nine-year, eight-month prison term. Defendant subsequently filed a notice of appeal specifying that his appeal is based on "the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea."
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On appeal, defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 that states the case and facts, but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant submitted a letter brief asking this court to review the issues he raised at a hearing held pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).
Pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record, keeping in mind that our review is limited to grounds for appeal that occurred after entry of defendant's no contest plea and do not affect the plea's validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1), (b)(4)(B).) We agree with defendant's appellate counsel that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Following the California Supreme Court's direction in People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case.
Our summary of the facts is taken from the probation report, which summarizes facts from an incident report and the preliminary hearing transcript. --------
On June 3, 2010, defendant and Royrick Miller entered a Wells Fargo Bank in Cupertino. Both wore masks, and Miller was armed with a pellet gun and a replica explosive device. Miller yelled that everyone was to get down on the ground and threatened to set off a bomb. Bank employees and customers dropped to the ground in response. Defendant demanded money from a bank employee, grabbed her keys, opened a cash drawer, and took out money.
B. Charges and First Trial
Defendant was charged by information with three counts of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and eight counts of felony false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237). The information also alleged that defendant had seven prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)). The District Attorney subsequently dismissed one strike allegation and one prior serious felony allegation.
A jury trial began on October 1, 2013. The jury began deliberating on October 31, 2013. On November 8, 2013, the jury indicated it was deadlocked and that additional deliberations would not lead to a unanimous verdict, and the trial court declared a mistrial.
In an order dated July 2, 2014, the trial court declared a doubt as to defendant's competency and suspended the criminal proceedings. (See § 1368.) On December 30, 2014, the trial court held a Marsden hearing and denied defendant's request to replace appointed counsel. Also on that date, defendant was found not competent to stand trial, and he was committed to the Department of State Hospitals in an order dated April 6, 2015. Defendant was found restored to competency on July 9, 2015.
C. Pleas and Sentencing
On September 2, 2015, the District Attorney filed a first amended information that charged defendant with 11 counts of false imprisonment and one strike allegation. Defendant pleaded no contest to all of the charges and admitted the strike allegation.
Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the strike allegation. (See People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) At the sentencing hearing held on December 29, 2015, the trial court granted the motion. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of nine years eight months: the three-year upper term for count 1, and consecutive eight month terms for the other 10 counts.
DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
ELIA, ACTING P.J. /s/_________
MIHARA, J.