Opinion
E060956
07-11-2014
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD CHARLES VIVANCO, Defendant and Appellant.
Leslie A. Rose, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. ) SWF1205402
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Albert J. Wojcik, Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
On October 23, 2012, an information charged defendant and appellant Richard Charles Vivanco with sale/transportation of a controlled substance, tar heroin under Health and Safety code sections 11352, subdivision (a) (count 1); possession for sale of a controlled substance, tar heroin under Health and Safety Code section 11351 (count 2); possession of liquid heroin under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) (count 3); possession of cocaine under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) (count 4); possession of hydrocodone under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a) (count 5); possession of suboxone under Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) (count 6); under the influence of a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11550, subdivision (a) (count 7); and possession of drug paraphernalia under Health and Safety Code section 11364.1 (count 8). In addition, sentence enhancements within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 were alleged as to counts 1 and 2. Furthermore, defendant was alleged to have incurred seven prison priors within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667.5, and one strike prior within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). Defendant was arraigned on October 25, 2012; pled not guilty; and denied the special allegations.
The information also charged co-defendant Rebecca Jean Vargas. She is not a party to this appeal.
On February 5, 2014, the day set for trial, defendant and his co-defendant Vargas entered into a package deal with the trial court. Defendant (1) pled guilty to all the charges; and (2) admitted the Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 enhancements as to counts 1 and 2, the seven priors, and the strike prior. Defendant was advised by the court that he was facing a sentence of 31 years, 8months if found guilty on all charges. In exchange for the plea, the court agreed to sentence defendant to 17 years, 4 months. On March 14, 2014, defendant was sentenced to the agreed upon term of 17years, 4 months.
On April 2, 2014, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal "based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea."
II
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On February 5, 2014, at the hearing wherein defendant pled guilty, the parties stipulated to the factual basis of the plea and all admissions. Defendant admitted that he did the things alleged in the complaint as to counts 1 through 8. He also admitted to the enhancements under counts 1 and 2; all the prison priors, and one strike prior.
III
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.